Allan Savory v George Monbiot debate | Is livestock grazing essential to mitigating climate change?

In the holistic planned grazing process, livestock are used as a tool to reverse the biodiversity loss that leads to desertification - a major contributor to climate change. Yet critics argue that livestock grazing, in almost all circumstances, is a net contributor to climate warming.
On 11 July 2023, founder and proponent of Holistic Management Allan Savory met prominent critic George Monbiot at Oxford University Museum of Natural History for a debate chaired by Dame Professor E.J. Milner-Gulland.
About Allan Savory:
Allan Savory began his career in the 1950s as a research biologist in central Africa where the loss of biodiversity in game reserves and national parks alarmed him. Reversing it became his life's focus and led to a significant breakthrough that became known in 1984 as Holistic Management. He is the author of Holistic Management: A Commonsense Revolution to Restore Our Environment, Third Edition (Island Press, 2016), and numerous scholarly papers and articles. He has been honoured by The Weston A. Price Foundation (Integrity in Science), the Buckminister Fuller Institute (for his work's "significant potential to solve some of humanity's most pressing problems") and the Banksia Foundation Australia (for "the person doing the most for the environment on a global scale"). He is President of the Savory Institute.
About George Monbiot:
George Monbiot is an author, Guardian columnist, and environmental activist whose current research focus is on the global food system. His best-selling books include Feral: Rewilding the land, sea, and human life, Heat: How to stop the planet burning, and Out of the Wreckage: a new politics for an age of crisis. George was awarded the Orwell Prize for Journalism in 2022. In the same year, he became an Honorary Fellow of Wolfson College, Oxford. George's latest book, Regenesis: Feeding the World without Devouring the Planet (shortlisted for the James Cropper Wainwright Prize for Writing on Conservation) draws on astonishing advances in soil and ecology to explore pioneering ways to grow more food with less farming.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OXFORD UNIVERSITY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
Oxford University Museum of Natural History was established in 1860 to draw together scientific studies from across the University of Oxford. Today, the award-winning Museum continues to be a place of scientific research, collecting and fieldwork, and plays host to a programme of events, exhibitions and activities for the public and school students of all ages.
Follow us on social media ► @morethanadodo
Website ► oumnh.web.ox.ac.uk/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEVERHULME CENTRE FOR NATURE RECOVERY
The Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery acts as a hub for innovative thinking, discussion and analysis of nature recovery nationally and worldwide, it unites leading researchers from a wide range of disciplines across Oxford University, its interdisciplinary approach bringing together expertise from the departments of geography, ecology, social science, finance, economics, psychiatry, anthropology, artificial intelligence, statistics and earth observation, to collaborate on a range of projects, in conjunction with national and international partners.
Follow us on social media ► @NatureRecovery
Website ►www.naturerecovery.ox.ac.uk/

[@resilientfarmsanddesignstu1702]

I had a 5 1/2 acre permaculture farm. Of that 5.5 acres, 2.25 acres was pasture, 1 acre was aquaculture/duck ponds, 0.25 acre was residence/landscape/herb garden. The rest was mostly orchard, hazel nuts, berries and garden. Only a quarter of the garden was annual vegetables. The rest was a cash crop of hard neck garlic, peppers, etc. We had and boarded some additional horses. We had way more food than we, our livestock, and our friends and neighbors could ever consume. When we started the farm it was overworked depleted pasture and orchard -- the fruit trees had long since been removed. The Carbon content of the soil was essentially zero. There was no macrobiotic life in the soil and minimal microbial diversity. As a direct result of applying our permaculture regenerative ecological farming practices and continuing to add fertility to the soil, the entire property came back to life. The Carbon content of the soil did increase but more importantly the Carbon was sequestered in the stock of BIOLOGY (both perennial trees and shrubs on the property (none of which were present) on the property before we took ownership. There were swallows, nesting birds, woodpeckers, turtles, frogs, foxes, deer, turkeys, etc., etc. etc. If you walked outside and we're not careful you would trip over all the abundant wildlife. In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that our homestead functioned as an oasis in a vast desert of ecological destruction that originated from decades of apathy, mismanagement, absentee ownership and abuse of the land. In marked contrast, we were functioning in our proper role as the keystone species and steward on the land. If everyone did as we did, the Earth would be in excellent shape. The problem is INDUSTRIAL monoculture agriculture, NOT poly culture agriculture and horticulture. End mechanized industrial monoculture and you will solve the problem.

[@brained2020]

Love what you're doing. People like you are making a small difference, compounded by others like you are monumental changes in the correct direction. Monoculture is an important part of feeding the cities of the world. It is just a fact. However. With Aggra North West, they have started to plant cover crops after harvest. It is a game-changer on every level. Cover crops are planted after the harvest. Another process is adding to their planting other plant spices during the planning year that creates a more symbiotic healthy environment complimenting the crop. This has helped substantially reduce chemical fertilizer. No, it is not perfect but a major move in the right direction.

[@charliebrandt2263]

You are absolutely right. Also if you encourage small farmers regeneration of social structures, reducing unemployment, localisation of food chains, we end up with a happy society but the west is run by greed and corporatism. It is anti human.

[@francisfinne3443]

Regarding Alans hesitation to talk about carbon emissions in this debate was perhaps his clumsy way of saying that priority number ONE is to stop desertification and save biodiersity because loss of biodiversity is irreversible and will lead to critical failiure regardless of our ability to successfully reduce carbon emissions to zero. Reducing emissions must be priority number TWO and should not be a hinder for priority number ONE. That being said, saving biodiversity and regenerating broken ecosystems like deserts has the benefit of storing carbon in biomass among other benefits like redusing human conflict over resources. Redusing emissions is obviously smart to do simultaneously. George needs to read Alans book (Holistic Management) because he is completely mising the point Alan makes. His point being that the management of enviornments in places with rainfall distributed over long periods of time does not necessarily work in places where it only rains in a shorter timeframe. The semantics and wordy sentances which I am now guilty of making myself may leads to confusion; Which is why Alan classifies these different enviornments into brittle and non-brittle enviornments; brittle meaning dry most of the year and non-brittle mening NOT dry most of the year. The local ecology of places with different brittleness behave differently and therefor requires different management. NB. I highly recommend Alans book!!

[@StillTrustNo1]

Ironically desertification happens primarily because of overproduction which again is only needed because people wants to feed livestock instead of humans directly

[@thomasward2165]

CDT has a land management experiment taking place in the French Pyrenees. Ex-grazing land and forest has been taken out of the grazing system. After three years the fauna and flora diversity has increased to an extent not imagined by the project team. I once contacted the Savory Foundation to ask why the native wildlife can not take the place of his desired domesticated solution. I recieved no response.

[@bashful228]

Savory is a grifter surviving on donations from people who cannot imagine a life without the slaughter of billions of cattle, sheep, pigs and hens per year.

[@danilodesnica3821]

Is the native wildlife edible? E.g. venison?

[@thomasward2165]

@@danilodesnica3821 I suppose I am trying to put other, potentially less damaging options out there. Within the next 10 years, cultured meat will be producing a huge array of meat products. So if its a case of meat, just have to have meat no matter what, cultured meat could be a solution. This would also allow land to regenerate in a more natural way, depending on the circumstances. If you are worried about human population dwindling perhaps cultured meat can supply enough for another few billion humans. But to put billions more domesticated animals on the land is as catastrophic as killing 40,000 elephants that were rare and did not need to die.

[@juliam3980]

Mr. Savory's strategies are most important in brittle environments that tend towards desertification. I don't think the French Pyrenees fall into that category. Much of the American West, particularly the southwest, does, as does a lot of Mexico, along with big pieces of South America and Africa.

[@thomasward2165]

@@juliam3980 I agree about the environmental types in regions globally and the need to find systems that work individually. But, I would strongly urge people to look outside the 'people' box in terms of viewing this issue. I have no issue with flash grazing and working towards a management plan. But I do disagree with not using naturaly found wild species that may have been deleted from the landscape by humans. Return native species where possible, then look at other solutions. Unfortunately cultured meat could reduce animal products of slaughtered animals. That's another, but related issue.

[@mark_handle]

NO MORE DEBATES! The truth is what we seek: not a winner. Discussions are what we need. Debates are corrupt: they are contests, assuming right and wrong belong to the speakers, someone is guilty, the other a hero. Debates require speakers to disagree. Read that again. Debates encourage deceit and falsehoods by the pressure to win. Debates encourage our biz-as-usual stupidity. Life as contest. Life as competition. What happened to cooperation? Were we not meant to evolve? We evolved from the jungle, to the concrete jungle. Haven’t learned anything. Why do we insist on having “debates” then? Because they’re good marketing! Yes, it’s about the almighty dollar. In this case, GBP.

[@rodmartin-nl8ns]

Debates is the only way to discuss any thing you must be on the losser side

[@doniehurley9396]

really well said Debates are contests where the best spins wins they are useless for finding truth and solutions

[@mikecahill3989]

Shut up not be cares what you want

[@nigeljennings6139]

This was rather frustrating. Alan Savory apparently set the terms of the debate and then proceeded to ignore the 'elephant' in the room - CO2. It was obvious that George Monbiot had prepared for a different debate based on the premise that it was about livestock grazing mitigating climate change. Not livestock grazing as a tool to reverse desertification. I have read Gabe Brown's book 'Dirt to Soil' where he has demonstrated that regenerative agriculture incorporating livestock in an arable system has increased carbon soil, water filtration and retention, and enabled him to almost do away with artificial fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides. Thus not only storing carbon in the soil but reducing the carbon required to produce food. I thought that this debate would look at such systems and provide some context. A missed opportunity.

[@sammcrae8892]

Desertification is both a result of and a driver of climate. Fixing issues with desertification would help with climate to at least a certain extent.

[@karlwheatley1244]

Gabe is great, but the problem is that you can usually do what he has done with or without running livestock around on your land.

[@gwynedd1]

@@karlwheatley1244 You do not have to when the climate is arable. That is why its not a good template for dry grasslands. There are many things to be done for land restoration. Water run off can be slowed with small check dams, and water resistant plants. Adding ruminants just adds more water syncs. In the high plains we should not be cropping at all. Drought resistant native grasses and Bison is the only thing sustainable. They have 15-18 foot root systems.

[@pex3]

@@karlwheatley1244Yes exactly.

[@justinsenryu7308]

Wow. I saw a talk of Allan Savory years ago so I was looking forward to this debate! I was quite shocked so here's my summary: He was introduced as having started out as a biologist, and indeed i checked, he has a degree in biology.He chose the title of the debate himself, 'Is livestock grazing essential to mitigating climate change?'. And yet, he produced not a single scrap of evidence nor any quantitative data. He proudly declared, many time, that he worked with 2,000 scientists (he says he was in charge of them) in the US to study his method. And yet, he claims his method is untestable, he says to ignore CO2, and his argument centred upon completely unrelated claims about the Allies in World War II and that his method, the only solution to climate change, would have been impossible for anyone to come up with if he had himself not been in a war. George responded by explaining how there is absolutely no proof of his method and countless studies have shown in fact the opposite. He also explained how Allan uses photographs and claims proven to be fraudulent. Allan had absolutely no comeback to this except for his rejection of science and the scientific method - strange since he boasted so many times that he worked with 2,000 scientists, and he himself was a biology research graduate. And he didn't even attempt to refute the claims of fraud. This was a disappointing debate. For it was in fact not a debate - only George even engaged with the debate topic, which Allan had chosen. Allan came across as a liar and a fraud, with a gentle voice. Unfortunately, it is likely that people who came to this with the preconceived notion that Allan's position was correct, and have no scientific training or understanding, might have fallen for Allan's soft voice and appeal to romantic emotion and imagery. But anyone with even a passable high school education in science and any sort of grounding in objectivity could not possible have been on Allan's side by the end of this, or even the middle. Allan simply had no trace of being any sort of authentic researcher, nor any sign of being willing to engage in debate in with any authenticity. He did mention that he was a politician, and that makes a whole lot of sense. So now I am left thinking of him as an ex-politician who wrote a memoir (he made sure to mention that too), and is paid for fraudulent work supporting methodology that has been thoroughly disproven by science. Sad, because I thought his work, when unchallenged, sounded nice, and inspiring. That's why it's so important to watch debates, I guess!

[@mildredthill2868]

Unfortunately the form of the debate did not allow Allan to expand on his knowledge. His attempt to simplify the debate may have made him look evasive. The main point is that if we all become vegans, it is unlikely that we will use the crop lands to grow food for human consumption. Humans don’t eat grass and if grass lands aren’t grazed they become desert. So we would just lose a source of calories and add more desert.

[@doniehurley9396]

And what is George a Scientist? I know that he started his carer in the Natural History department of the BBC where his services were dispenced with by the Beeb He is an Activist a highly erudite hyper-literate advocate for the restoration and rewilding of the planet and damn all else, in his Utiopa humanity would subsist on genetically altered Bacteria, producing protein like compounds and Agriculture would be dispenced with in its entirety a true Zealot

[@justinsenryu7308]

@@mildredthill2868 He chose the debate title! His absolute failure to speak to his own title of the debate was entirely his own fault. His rejection of the scientific method was his own ignorance or dishonesty. And his continual boasting of working with 2,000 scientists and a few other science-based claims to promote himself was his own hypocrisy, using science to boost his image when it suits him and ridiculing it when the simple fact that he has no scientific evidence for his claims, became apparent. 1% of the planet's land is used for buildings. 38% is used for farming. Only 12% is used for crops, almost half of which is used to feed livestock. So that's about 6% for crops for humans to eat. The other 26%? That's used for grazing livestock, which contributed only a tiny proportion of what we actually eat. So when you say "The main point is that if we all become vegans, it is unlikely that we will use the crop lands to grow food for human consumption. ", I just don't believe your assumption. Even for the non-grazing land, we could double the amount of crops for humans simply by using the other 6% that grows crops to feed livestock! And that's not even including changing to more efficient and far less destructive methods, such as species-rich intensive organic no-dig market gardens, which can be far more productive *and* profitable than common farming, as demonstrated by people like Richard Perkins, for example. "Humans don’t eat grass and if grass lands aren’t grazed they become desert. " That is simply false. Allan had ample opportunity to prove that but offered not a single scrap of evidence of that. George mentioned how Allan has been proven to use fraudulent photos where in fact *stopping* the grazing made the land regenerate but he just labelled the photos the opposite of what they were, to make his claims. Notice Allan didn't even deny that! And to be clear, Allan didn't even attempt to give a scrap of proof that livestock grazing can make any positive impact *at all* on mitigating climate change, let alone it being 'essential' to it as he himself claimed in his own title that he was supposed to prove in debate! Literally his reasoning was 'It can't be proved because it's like World War II and the Allies won, therefore you just have to believe me, and by the way I reject science so don't worry I have absolutely no scientific proof.' In countless cases it's precisely grazing that has *caused* desertification! Even here in the UK, it's overgrazing that makes places like Scotland so barren and lacking in biodiversity. Sheep and deer. When areas are fenced off, the old forests finally grow back, that has been clearly demonstrated. As it has also in many other places. Now there may be a very few places where grazing helps, such as rewilding parts of the US which could include taking down fences and reintroducing herds of wild bison and allow them their natural migration and so on. And I am surely supportive of the idea of reestablishing *wild* grazing animals to their historic native habitats, rewilding areas to properly balanced ecosystems as they would have been before being taken over by herds of domesticated animals or vast stretches of polluting monocrops. But that wasn't Allan's argument, if he even had one. Now I don't have time to find the many scientific papers on this that refute your claim, but here's one, just to give an example, 'Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems': www.hindawi.com/journals/ijbd/2014/163431/ And here are some quotes - in section '4. Does Rest Cause Grassland Deterioration?': "Another principle of HM is that grasslands and their soils deteriorate from overrest, a term that implies insufficient grazing by livestock. However, grasslands that have never been grazed by livestock have been found to support high cover of grasses and forbs. Relict sites throughout the western USA, such as on mesa tops, steep gorges, cliff sides, and even highway rights of way, which are inaccessible to livestock or most ungulates, can retain thriving bunchgrass communities [36-38]. For example, herbaceous growth was vigorous on never-grazed Jordan Valley kipukas in southeast Oregon [37] and on a once-grazed butte called The Island in south central Oregon [36]. Published comparisons of grazed and ungrazed lands in the western USA have found that rested sites have larger and more dense grasses, fewer weedy forbs and shrubs, higher biodiversity, higher productivity, less bare ground, and better water infiltration than nearby grazed sites. These reports include 139 sites in south Dakota [39], as well as sites that had been rested for 18 years in Montana [40], 30 years in Nevada [41], 20-40 years in British Columbia [42], 45 years in Idaho [43], and 50 years in the Sonoran Desert of Arizona [44]. None of the above studies demonstrated that long periods of rest damaged native grasslands. A list and description of such sites can be found in [45]. The HM misinterpretation of the natural history of grazed and ungrazed grasslands is apparent in Savory’s description of the Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch in southeastern Arizona [6]. This ranch has been protected from livestock grazing since 1968 with the grasses on the ranch described by Savory as becoming “moribund” (page 211), with “bare spots opening up” (page 211). In contrast to those claims, plant species richness on the ranch increased from 22 species in 1969 to 49 species in 1984, while plant cover increased from 29% in 1968 to 85% in 1984 [46]. Total grass cover on the ranch was significantly higher on ungrazed sites when compared to grazed sites () [47]. These well designed studies produced quantitative data showing that the HM view of the ranch is not the case. Conclusion. Contrary to the assumption that grasses will senesce and die if not grazed by livestock, studies of numerous relict sites, long-term rested sites, and paired grazed and ungrazed sites have demonstrated that native plant communities, particularly bunchgrasses, are sustained by rest from livestock grazing." And from section '5. Is Hoof Action Necessary for Grassland Health?': "Conclusion. We found no evidence that hoof action as described by Savory occurs in the arid and semiarid grasslands of the western USA which lacked large herds of ungulates such as bison that occurred in the prairies of the USA or the savannahs of Africa. No benefits of hoof action were found. To the contrary, hoof action by livestock has been documented to destroy biological crusts, a key component in soil protection and nutrient cycling, thereby increasing erosion rates and reducing fertility, while, increasing soil compaction and reducing water infiltration." And '6. Can Grazing Livestock Increase Carbon Storage and Reverse Climate Change?': "Conclusion. Livestock are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock removal of plant biomass and altering of soil properties by trampling and erosion causes loss of carbon storage and nutrients as evidenced by studies in grazed and ungrazed areas." And from '7. What Is the Evidence That Holistic Management Does Not Produce the Claimed Effects?': "Conclusion. Studies in Africa and the western USA, including the prairies which evolved in the presence of bison, show that HM, like conventional grazing systems, does not compensate for overstocking of livestock. As in conventional grazing systems, livestock managed under HM reduce water infiltration into the soil, increase soil erosion, reduce forage production, reduce range condition, reduce soil organic matter and nutrients, and increase soil bulk density. Application of HM cannot sequester much, let alone all the greenhouse gas emissions from human activities because the sequestration capacity of grazed lands is much less than annual greenhouse gas emissions." This is just one of so many examples. It really does seem that the reason Allan didn't even attempt to argue his chosen debate title, and why he stupidly rejected the scientific method, is because his claims are fraudulent and all the science proves him wrong. And I say that as someone who came to this debate with an open mind, totally willing to have Allan make a proper case and prove George wrong. But Allan's dishonesty, and lack of integrity and authenticity, was blindingly obvious, just as was George's integrity and scientific backing. And having looked into the evidence afterwards, this is only more obvious.

[@editing5157]

@@justinsenryu7308 Yes, the flaw in this theory is that large volumes of livestock were often migratory across vast areas of landscape. So while they may have been high density they moved a lot, and there were predators to move them. It is cherry picking ecological science. In equivalent 'natural' savannah, there a higher bio- and genetic diversity of gracers of different shapes and sizes, also contributing to higher biodiversity. Personally, I think the fundamental problem of modern agriculture is scale..I think we need to shift to small to medium scale and greater human engagement, but it doesn't seem we are going in that direction. I don't completely agree with all of George's solutions. I think he has done good research, has good suggestions, but fundamentally lacks experience and has a rather urban centric perspective. Farming fundamentally needs to be pretty mixed, a combination of technological innovation and human re-engagement with the process of producing food for a whole raft of reasons from sustainability to reconnecting with the modes of production.

[@peervossuruguayestancia5115]

yes

[@maggieadams8600]

The fact is that there has never been so much livestock and the problems are increasing, that forests in Brazil have been decimated for decades, (I remember reading about it in the late 1970's), to feed the fast food trade. Our ancestors didn't eat that way, it wasn't an option ever before, and to eat it at such a scale is unsustainable. Also goats and sheep destroy trees, so I can't understand that argument at all.

[@antonyjh1234]

We've never had as large crop areas, these are dead zones, they are deserts for the aniamls including insects that lived there, and our ancestors ate others since we came of the primoradial ooze.

[@maggieadams8600]

@@antonyjh1234 I live in South Lincolnshire which is full of large fields of crops but there is zero desertification. Also large amounts of those crops will go to feed livestock. Of all the mammals on Earth, 96% are livestock and humans, only 4% are wild mammals, what does that tell you?.

[@antonyjh1234]

@@maggieadams8600 Those crops aren't going to replace all that we get from, no crop will, so it is a net gain. We feed more waste from our crops for us to animals than we feed human edible grain. I'm not sure what the 4% metric is supposed mean, we have to talk about what replaces animals and if something is going to be worse then the 4% wild mammals is going to lessen, along with most of the worlds insects, vegans are 3% of the western world, a 3500% increase in numbers would be needed, the worlds bee's could handle a 100% increase in pesticides. In USA it's around a third of corn that is fed to animals, this third won't give us all we get, pet food for example, hundreds of thousands of tonnes.

[@jackson8085]

@@antonyjh1234 Have you ever fed a cow corn, it's not he inedible part... it's the same thing we eat..

[@antonyjh1234]

@@jackson8085 How what an absolute load of if you excuse the pun, bullshit. The key word you are looking for is chaff, maybe have a look. As I said, not sure if this was in the comment you are replying too but 14% of what animals eat is full grain, now we don't know the quality of that grain this is as crops can vary per year and sub par grain does need to go somewhere but 86% of what cows eat is inedible to us, the other 14% is a varying quality but it's certainly not going to be the best of the crops, whether it be corn or like here, wheat. Soooo, my question to you is have you ever fed just pure corn to a corn fed cow and if so how long did it last because no cow can eat grain from birth because their stomachs can't digest it and pure grain is in zero cows diet elsewhere?

[@peervossuruguayestancia5115]

as a cattle rancher in Uruguay and very interested in the subject I was VERY keen on hearing what Savory would say on the topic. I had the nerves to listen to him the first 20 minutes. That was quite painful. With not one single sentence he addressed the subject WHY grazing may mitigate climate change. Was that because of old age.? Was he a more relevant scientist when he was younger?

[@juliam3980]

He did. He explained that desertification is the most potent driver of climate change, and showed what a large proportion of the planet is desertifying (showing that all of the UK fits into Mozambique). He reports that tightly managed grazing reverses desertification, increasing the amount of organic matter in the soil and returning water to the system. At first, in damaged land, the only place wet enough for the necessary bacterial action is INSIDE a ruminant. Later, the soil begins to develop the capacity to hold water. OK, so what part didn't you get?

[@reubennb2859]

he was never a scientist! he was a soldier and then politician in Rhodesia, supporting the concentration camps, apartheid, civilian mass killings etc. Regenerative agriculture was just a pet project that his political power enabled him to toy with, before he got exiled from Rhodesia when it dissolved and he moved into cattle industry lobbying. quite a fascinating and morally reprehensible life

[@hilnoretna1]

The only science that is rewarded with acknowledgment and prizes is fake science. Every Nobel Prize was given for faulty information to be pushed as a scientific truth.

[@wozzaladers3244]

@@juliam3980 He didn't explain anything, total waffle!

[@joshmann7587]

This is why you can't debate with an ideologe, straight off the bat Mr Monbiot proceeds to completely ignore Alan's pretexts to the debate that he outlined. This is why you should actually get people to debate who actually have skin in the game and not just a media person.

[@joshmann7587]

This also completely shows he wasn't coming to debate, he's already 'right' and has just come to show it.

[@propositionjohnston]

I wish George could have been warmer in this debate, then we could have called it ‘sweet vs savoury’.

[@dirkcampbell5847]

Savory kept repeating irrelevant points and never once talked about what his method actually is. Seems like he is just being devious and trying (rather transparently) to fob off Monbiot's objections. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but Savory didn't even get round to the detail of what his claims are.

[@GoldenLife-uq2ms]

His point was superbly clear to us.

[@Melanie-ei3ie2dt3u]

1/ It's unfortunate they weren't aligned on the topic, one focusing on carbon as the driver of climate change and the other on reversing desertification in arid and semi-arid areas, which made the debate far less efficient. 2/ The chair should have picked-up on this early and clarified the relevant context in each case by acknowledging the difference between forests and grasslands, their relative location on Earth according to climate, and the relevance of large herds of grazing animals in one but not the other. 3/ Then, in terms of the toolbox Allan Savory mentioned to reverse desertification, he could have mentioned permaculture and the wonderful results of the Greening the Desert project that Geoff Lawton is doing in Jordan without using large herds of grazing animals. 4/ Last, it is very important to keep in mind that desertification and rainfall decline primarily occur because of deforestation and mismanaged grazing, since plants are the key to a healthy water cycle both above and below ground. Once you replant and restore that water cycle at large scale, rainfall will increase again.

[@5wift]

Savory chose the topic!

[@matthewmichaels5522]

The planet is greening and more now than the past 30 years. The desertification argument is invalid.

[@Vscustomprinting]

You are an idiot if you think this isnt a science vs a cult of personality thing... Seriously... Youd have to have the same suspension of belief required to take the debates of the merits of human slavery in 1832 seriously. Do you understand? They. Have. No. Valid. Arguments. They refuse to admit to fundamental flaws... They are doing this on purpose, and only a sophist would suggest any of this is engaging our progressive. Animal products are addicting, both physiological as well as the affluence their commodification creates... Its so obvious that i use it to tell if people are ignorant, or lying.

[@BlacksheepHomestead]

The Jordan site was already reduced to dust and rubble. Not the same as existing struggling grassland areas where there is a cycle to restore

[@rudypadillapadilla6372]

Exactly, George is talking about farms and ranches! Allen is talking about natural landscapes, … natural grass lands, that should never be farmed. Maybe the title should’ve been changed during the debate. So that they can discuss what needs to be discussed.

[@JohannesOBorge]

21 million hectares of improved soil, and counting, due to regenerative practices. This in just a couple of decades. It is not just BS, literally speaking.

[@jackson8085]

And all those hectares still don't feed anyone, don't increase biodiversity, and do a poor job of carbon sequestration when you factor in the entire life cycle of grass fed beef.

[@ciaranryan5265]

@@jackson8085 The ranchers replaced biodiversity with one ruminant and are trying to claim it's natural. It ain't. Alan's line is being cynically used by meat industry to greenwash. That's the politics of profit.

[@jonforsyth2895]

I think Alan has lost his focus. His system is a method to address desertification but now he seems to be advocating an increase in livestock everywhere. We don't need waffle we need clear dialogue. Alan's system isn't meant to answer all our problems but a way to return desertified land back to a living organic system will, as he says, be a key weapon in addressing climate change and our future survival on this planet.

[@markharris5544]

These two were talking past one another. Mr. Monbiot was talking about livestock in general. Mr. Savory was talking about a specific method of livestock management which mimics the way wild ruminants graze and it's application to arid regions of the world to prevent desertification. I agree with the lady who said they were both right. Their different strategies applied to different situations. A creative solution could have come out of this debate. Mr. Savory agreed that the Holistic Method is only one tool in a toolkit. Mr. Monbiot agreed that in limited circumstances livestock grazing could be of benefit. A question for Mr. Monbiot is "How do you rewild a dessert since there is no moisture present to start with?" I suppose the answer might be to plant trees or other vegetation and import water for a time. How about starting with ruminants which as Mr. Savory says create the decomposition in their gut and then moving the livestock on once the vegetation is well established. Mr. Savory might agree because he was not arguing that his method was superior for drawing down carbon, only that it addressed a problem that must be solved and can't be solved in any other way.

[@ingridgolding978]

Iyours seems to be the most intelligent comment. I find it absolutely incredible for someone who professes himself to be an expert on climate to ask how do you regenerate a desert! It's been done consistently from when John D Liu began his quest after witnessing the transformation of the Loess plateau in Chinakzbin.info/www/bejne/j3Ovi6CtobWUbqM

[@markharris5544]

@@ingridgolding978 Do you think there are any circumstances in which the intensive grazing method might work better than planting vegetation? It might depend on who the bordering native people are: whether they are farmers or herders.

[@ingridgolding978]

@@markharris5544 most of the ecosystem restoration projects have to take into consideration many factors. Right now the priority is getting the hydrological cycle to a safe place to mitigate the dangerous floods, hurricanes and droughts we are facing and for this we have to know how it functions and it is found to be through ' spongey' soil (soil that's healthy and contains microorganisms of fungus and bacteria for nutrient cycling and can store vast amounts of carbon) as a basis upon which plant and animal life can flourish. What has happened is large areas of land have become desertified or degraded, previously because of deforestation and overgrazing and now because of highly devastating industrial agriculture posing multiple threats:loss of biodiversity and carbon storage, degradation of soil, cancerous products and toxic waste and nitrogen killing marine and river life. Our food systems are no longer local or community based entailing huge energy costs (processing, packaging, refrigeration, transport and much more. Industrial agriculture is highly subsidized causing unfair competition for smallhold farmers who could do much for improving soil quality and biodiversity as well as eliminate all the 'externalities' of big Ag. Yes reducing meat is good but beware of the new 'plant based products' being promoted by the big abusers such as Dupont, Monsanto (Bayer) Corteva (ex Union carbide of the Bohpal incident in India) they are taking vast amounts of land in the amazon

[@leelindsay5618]

​@@markharris5544yes, herbivores are key to planting many native species...a moist cow pat with seeds in it are taken underground by dung beetles will sprout grasses and can grow long enough to begin shading its own roots and neighboring plants. One pat is good, but dozens per 100 sq ft and hundreds of cow pats per acre can turn into a fertilized seed bed that changes the nature of the area.

[@anibaldamiao]

You're right. it's a shame how scientists and "VIP"s in this area stopped being able to understand these common grounds that allow never-ending debates to reach conclusions.

[@michaelwalls4346]

So Savory asked these Phds he knows to describe the scientific method, which they did, to then ask them to describe the meaning of science, which they could not. What is he on??

[@alexandergramirez]

Lol, the funniest line in the whole "debate"

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

Only psychopaths support the barbaric "livestock" industry when it is proven that vegans are healthier (Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets, 2016) 👉 Dominion (2018).

[@huntjo88]

The most interesting point Allan Savory made was the location of where his technique happens - it's relevant in places where oxidation takes place due to lack of rain for prolonged periods. He also references his technique to desertification not species rich grasslands.

[@tinfoilhatscholar]

Yes, the bulk of the world's habitable lands. It's kinda important.

[@huntjo88]

@@tinfoilhatscholar "Due to lack of rain for prolonged periods" aren't ideal "habitable lands."

[@someguy2135]

That wasn't the topic of the debate! If it were, Monbiot would have brought evidence to address that topic instead of "Is livestock grazing essential to mitigating climate change?"

[@mischevious]

@@huntjo88The more biomass on the surface and in the soil, the more water is retained within the system. In turn temperatures are mitigated by that biomass and chances of rain increase. Nature knows how to do her job. We have an abysmal track record proving we don’t. Because we’re only focused on ourselves instead of the body of life that afforded us life in the first place.

[@huntjo88]

@@mischevious I agree... biomass can come from plants, animals, fungi ... humans.

[@franksu9735]

Grazing could be down in small scale not like american food industry .

[@anned6913]

Why does everyone seem to forget that wildlife are present in rewilding. We don't necessarily need farmed animals !!

[@widgetman2487]

A poorly moderated debate. The university could do so much better. The key part missing from the debate was the simple tenet which both participants should know, understand and accept is that oxidation of plant matter releases carbon dioxide and as such represents one of the larger contributors to atmospheric carbon dioxide. What Alan Savory should have done was start with that premise and build his opening remarks from that point then George Monbiot would have had something to work with. Sadly this case was not made at any stage in the discussion and shows how little the chair understood the dynamics of the debate. Wasted opportunity.

[@Washpenrebel]

Why didn't anyone ask the question. "How do we get the nutrients into the vegetables without using farmyard manure". The war in Russia put massive pressure on chemical fertilizers, these were replace by farmers with farmyard manure. The thing I don't like about George is this and the lady moderating was very good to point out. George speaks as he would in a lecture hall from a pulpit. The problem with his arguments were so high level they couldn't be translated to people on the ground. For example he said we could move people over to plant based diets. This is possible however most farmers know that when you grow crops you need to put the organic matter back into the soil. Where does it come from? Allan is on the ground and he knows for healthy soil you need animals. Lets break it down easy, if you ask any Gardner to make your soil fertile what do you feed it?

[@justgivemethetruth]

Yeah, Monbiot is a killer on Twitter. He spews out like he knows the answer to everything, and even here he is insulting Savory like a nasty little kid. I trust real people who've actually grown stuff and done the agricultural experimentation a lot more than these internet paper-reading theorists .

[@erictorbet8104]

There is nothing magical about manure, it's just fermented/decomposed plant matter. You can increase fertility of land with plants themselves, through cover crops and compost made from plants. Doing this is actually more efficient than fertilizing with manure, because no energy is wasted by first passing through an animal.

[@Washpenrebel]

@@justgivemethetruth in Ireland we have farmers growing potatoes on rented grasslands. They grow crops for two or three years then the soil is exhausted. Its put back into grasslands to recover. Cows zre used to fertilise the soil again. Soil health is key and we need both crops and cattle.

[@ciaranryan5265]

Composted natural green material.

[@Washpenrebel]

@@ciaranryan5265 where are you gonna get the millions of tons needed to keep the soil fertile? Where is it magically gonna come from? You know how your ancestors grew crops? It was on a 3 cycle system. Ie year 1 wheat, year 2 wheat, year 3 grass grazed with cows, year 4 wheat, year 5 wheat, year 6 grass grazed with cows ect ect. This was used all over the world until modern chemical fertilisers. Which by the way we know are not good for the soil or the planet as they leech into the water ways and our lakes fill with algae and unwanted plants that use all the oxygen killing the fish. Any other ideas????

[@henrydobson9419]

I feel like savory is the man when it comes to reversing desertification but monbiot seems to have a much firmer handle on the damaging effects of meeting the worlds demand for meat. They’re experts in completely different problems from completely different ecosystems and parts of the world. Shame they couldn’t see the value in eachothers arguments

[@auggieniopetch3045]

Except that the demand for grain is far worse and requires vastly more energy, chemical intervention and fossil fuel usage. These leftist, agenda driven twits have such a giant blind spot in their reasoning, they can't be taken for anything other than what they are. Political stooges.

[@neilrobinson8101]

The thing is, Monbiot's argument is to prevent desertification by preventing climate breakdown. And as Savory pointed out, even if his method is adopted to attempt reversal of desertification, millions of people will still be displaced and/or starve to death. People aren't going to wait around for food when their crops fail. Therefore, George's argument is also highly relevant if we fail to prevent climate breakdown, as we'll certainly need a new food system then. Makes sense to start introducing it now if it has the chance of preventing wider problems.

[@wendyscott8425]

From what I've heard, regenerative ranchers use a quarter of the land that industrial ranches use to grow their cattle. The cows improve the soil both by stomping their hooves into it to disturb it, putting some plant material into it, and by what comes out their back ends, the plants then can grow in a soil rich in biodiversity (no one mentioned the microbiome in this debate), and the soil absorbs carbon through the plants and its fungi. Plus, there are bacteria in the soil that eats the methane that cows produce. The reason livestock has such a bad name is the way it's grown industrially, which destroys grassland as they're allowed to graze continuously, taking the plants down to the dirt. Then the cattle are put into disgusting feedlots to finish on "food" they never would eat ordinarily, which produces the methane George complains about. This doesn't happen with grass-fed beef. Those animals are raised on only grass. I don't know why George can't face these facts. Seems pretty obvious to me, and I'm not even a farmer. But I've seen three years of videos by various ranchers operating this way, and it makes complete sense to me. Their cattle are beautiful and happy, btw. Oh, and their ranches attract other animals like deer and turkeys because of their healthy ecosystem.

[@xaitramuntana1377]

Sience cannot answer the question of the debate . But i am a sheepfarmer myself so i see what i see . The benefit of wildgrazing cannot be denied . Overgrazing can be a problem but not grazing at all is a much bigger problem . The first one has a quick solution but the second one.....sometimes it,s just irreversible . And people like Monbiot call this erroniously " rewilding " .

[@mischevious]

@@wendyscott8425 Spot on! The landscape needs to be reset periodically or it gets overgrown and chokes itself. Imagine what it was like when the Earth was teeming with life; flocks of birds so large they blackened the sky, herds that stretched as far as the eye could see, coyotes so abundant they became defacto to pets in the homes of settlers, salmon runs so massive they could be heard coming across the ocean weeks before their arrival.. Now imagine the amount of dung, scat, manure, urea and blood hitting the landscape on a constant basis- food for life! I’ll even bet, with life on top of life gobbling it all up, that it didn’t even stink.

[@thomasward2165]

I think Alan diverts from the point at around 38/39 minutes when he seems to dismiss science as a way of gathering knowledge. I'm sure that was not his intention. But George is putting logic, knowledge and common sense together to find a way of coming to a workable solution.

[@desiremuchiwa5172]

To really understand Allan, you obviously need to be involved on the practical side of things. I once visited his centre and now applying his ideas back home.....the results are amazing and that's all I can say!

[@jimmckinley8110]

The second question was not answered by Allan Savory. How do you compare Natural Wild land to converted land to grazing?

[@anibaldamiao]

I've read a bit about Savory's ways. He never denied the impact of destroying the amazon. Most of his work focused on dry land with little rain whee "natural wild land" disappeared because of lack of animals.

[@citizensolidarity]

by imulating what is in nature.

[@soulflower8687]

Furthermore, a point worth noting here is that Savory is an imperialist large scale rancher in Africa, who then has subsequently worked closely with the powerful ranching industry in the USA. Is it too much to ask who is actually funding the Savory Institute these days ?

[@inotaarto8719]

Il post my two cents worth of opinion. I manage a small heard of sheep in green zone. I graze traditional grazing areas on shorelines and forrest fields. The effect on the bio diversity (plants, insects, birds and such is to me apparent to me. I clear buch, clear trees so as sunlight can penetrate to the ground. There are several species of plants that need this kind of disturbance. The areas I graze have been grazed for atleast for hundreds of years. Before i started to graze, the areas had been left to nature for several decades. If the areas are left unmanaged it will become dense forrest and shrubbery. I do this work with assistance from ecological professionals who guide me in what trees to keep and which to clear. The effects are almost immediate. The thing is, there are biological niches that have evolved due to human interaction and grazing for as long as humans have inhabited these places. Hence they have become dependent on this disturbance. Hence I believe that there is a need for sustainable grazing practices. I am not speaking for completely removing forrest. There are a lot of natural forrest here, i am forespeaking for keeping these both types of biomes. Also, for us to be able to produce food from these highly fertile areas i do not see another way than to use grazing animals or to hunt the plenty of deer that are present. I am glad to discuss the topic or awnser questions on the topic.

[@jackson8085]

The type of biomes you create would exist with or without you, the only difference is the frequency. You think too highly of yourself and your work, nature was working much better before you or your sheep, which aren't even native. I also can't help but notice you completely ignore the harmful impacts you have on the environment. What of those "nasty" dense forests and shrubbery you seem to think are inferior for whatever reason.

[@doniehurley9396]

​@@jackson8085 He isn't the only one who thinks too highly of themselves what a condescending mean spirited post.

[@markneuman2070]

You sound like an activist. There is no reasoning with unreasonable people.

[@ameliatan2801]

Quite right. There are landscapes which simply takes a much longer time to rewild on its own and remain unproductive without interventions like fire or animal grazing.

[@markneuman2070]

@@jackson8085 You have little to no idea of what you are implying.

[@justgivemethetruth]

If we want change and growth we should completely get rid of patents and copyrights and incentivize a whole new massive type of growth and innovation - and get rid of those with money who capture these patents and hold the world back.

[@justgivemethetruth]

Savory is arguing against global warming, desertification, species loss, etc. Monbiot seems to just be arguing against Savory.

[@Vscustomprinting]

You arent smart enough or concerned enough to get it... You are an animal product addict and cannot see beyond their bias.. thats just the truth of it.

[@blackbeard1988]

I don't even know who the Monbiot guy is, but he sounds like a ton of other useless scientists. Savory is on the ground creating change in the areas that he knows how to create change. He's running programs that people from all over the world come to and learn from, take back to their homes and then cause change for the better there. Sounds like the right guy to me. Does he struggle with debate and articulation? Absolutely. Do his methods work? Absolutely

[@stanweaver6116]

When he says that grazing animals cannot mitigate climate change it would seem that he is speaking to a completely different subject than the subject of habitat destruction and desertification. In fact it is a well known fact , that increased levels of CO2 are contributing to significant greening on the planet while simultaneously being blamed for desertification apparently. I’m not sure how he squares that circle ? But may be that it is yet to come.

[@ricos1497]

heat?

[@kadmow]

@@ricos1497 - cover up the ground, reverse desertification (hot bare ground between sparse "green" woody weeds is still contributing to local heating and evaporating surface moisture) uncovered ground erodes when the wet season rains come leaving no soil to support grasses.

[@anibaldamiao]

I hate it when journalists and book writers take part of debates by ignoring a Socrastic method that scientists know well about. George had to engage with "lack of rain", oxidation and other details that are core to Allan's thesis. Allan doesn't seem to explain well why his "forget carbon" is relevant to a non-scientist: allan is talking about oxydation as a first principle, a concept that George is ignorant about

[@adrianjos04]

Desertification is ALWAYS via loss of grasslands. Grass is king of all plant species.

[@turkinsoncable]

This really was one of the strangest debates I have ever seen. I think it's a good example of where Steele Manning would work and where they should try and find what they have in common

[@evantspurrell]

I think allan got owned on a debate level. i like Alans work and am on his side but he really needs to present some evidence.

[@stevem8318]

View a few more videos, he presents good evidence considering the powers-that-be are pro-desertification and are on a meat reduction program. Meat reduction is what they fund.

[@Ermude10]

Why would you be on his side if he can't present any evidence? There's plenty of evidence, but they mostly refute rather than support Allan's claims.

[@stevem8318]

@@Ermude10 Refute? What evidence is that?

[@evantspurrell]

because their is evidence that properly managed grazing is good for the environment. it is the natural order of things. the anti meat people have a screw loose @@Ermude10

[@susantillander2080]

David wins. He had all the science, Allen just had anecdotes and strange metrohores. I heavily leaned towards Allen's side at the beginning but George really convinced me to rethink the popular notion about grazing. I love Gabe Brown, he is a wonderful story teller but science beats personal experience.

[@65j20e58w35]

Monbiot can't respond to the fact that biodiversity is collapsing in regions where grazing isn't taking place.

[@Flumstead]

He responded to me recently by blocking me on twitter, utterly childish.😀

[@erictorbet8104]

That's a false claim. Cattle destroy biodiversity, by turning the land into "golf courses", where birds and other critters are unable to nest.

[@spiral-m]

What are you referring to exactly? Monbiot has often talked about causes of biodiversity loss other than grazing

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

There are more than one cause of biodiversity loss, "livestock" is one of them. Only psychopaths support the barbaric "livestock" industry when it is proven that vegans are healthier (Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets, 2016) 👉 Dominion (2018).

[@neilmarsh8014]

George: "Stop growing grain to feed to livestock". Yes indeed, beef animals for example do nicely on grass, and hay in the winter. It's the way our markets and industry are set up, which makes growing grain to feed to critters an economic necessary. It is not necessary, by any practical measure. George also mentioned another problem, probably the biggest obstacle to any real solutions: the near-monopoly corporate ownership of most of the world's food supply. Healthy, biologically active soils are what we need to focus on. So long as agriculture is profit-driven, soils (and everything else) will suffer.

[@leewatts6948]

Hey George - I’m on board your plan to solve climate change. I’ve already given up meat and have been eating insects but I now realise I should be eating single celled organisms instead. I’m sure this will catch on quickly throughout the world- thanks to you I feel very virtuous as an early adopter.

[@pisztufilm]

"It's the how, not the cow" - Lierre Keith

[@ceeemm1901]

Lierre Keith, the Cattleman's favourite lesbian...( now there's an oxymoron!)

[@lysianechagnonfontaine3696]

It's definitely the cow(s)

[@anabolicamaranth7140]

“Humans can’t digest plant proteins” - Lierre Keith. I should be dead by now according to Lierre.

[@georgemead6608]

@@anabolicamaranth7140 Actually, humans can't digest grass.

[@frederickbowdler8169]

not enough farming taught in schools that's a problem .

[@frederickbowdler8169]

so does Allen think that heavy grazing works best in s Africa or can we do it in uk?

[@stevewaters6414]

at least alan has been there made mistake's admitted to it but realized where he was wrong and corrected it and it works. where as george will push any idea that make's everyone eat plants to such an extent he like a stuck gramophone record cannot accept there are otherways

[@campt91]

Do you have any thoughts on cicer milkvetch and crownvetch? I'm thinking of making these 2 plants the main staples of my perennial food plot mixes. The main reason is they hold onto thier leaves late into the fall and early winter after hard frosts unlike most perennial forages like alfalfa and clover. They are commonly used for stockpile winter forage for livestock in some areas. In my region fall annuals are not an option due to summer/fall dry season and early frosts so only hardy perennials can provide adequate nutrition during hunting season.

[@anibaldamiao]

kale is used for feeding wild animais / hunting stock to achieve the same late-season forage so it makes sense

[@andrewtrip8617]

Just a few . vetches are good nitrogen fixers so you may be able to diversify your forage crop making it more attractive diverse and sustainable.Also I’m not sure you are “hunting” in the true sense of the word ,it looks to me like you are engaged in primitive agriculture and animal domestication .

[@robshepherd2974]

Alex Podolinsky, the founder of biodynamic agriculture in Australia, extensively tested the increases in stabilised organic carbon (humus) on his farm and in the old growth forest, adjoining his farm. The “scientific” results were repeatedly presented to the CSIRO (government scientific body in Aust). They showed no interest. No wonder George could find no evidence.

[@LinusBerglund]

Because - despite saying some actually good things - he was a Rudolf Steiner crackpot? Spreading cow urine with a goat horn in a full moon and stuff. It is hard to separate whatever works because these people rarely invite scientific rigour.

[@emilycumpston3980]

The thing that I'm struggling to understand is that if we take Savory's assumption (at around the 19-minute mark) that the world has gone vegan and the cows used are not directly part of human food systems, then what makes that system "livestock" in any meaningful way, and why not do something similar with whatever large herbivores are native to the local ecosystem? If you honor the assumption that the world is vegan, then reintroducing grazing ruminants specifically for ecological value sounds... basically like rewilding. Prioritize native ruminants, allow large predators to hunt, and I bet Monbiot would be on board. But it's also getting away from the topic of the debate, which is livestock grazing. If the ruminants in the "everyone is vegan" hypothetical are livestock, then so is basically every animal in any park or wildlife reserve. But then that obscures the human/livestock relationship, which is about raising animals *for labor or resources*. The sustainability of that relationship seems to be an interest to Monbiot, who at one point (1 hr, 6 min or so) argues that if you're using these animals sustainably for ecosystem services /and/ as a food source, you're getting a negligible amount of food. My understanding of what he's saying here is that since these small-scale restoration projects aren't scalable as food production, they don't exist for the same purposes and are doing very different things from livestock production, and therefore shouldn't be conflated. So going back to Savory's suggestion that we assume for the sake of argument a world that's already gone vegan, then the topic becomes "are ruminants essential to mitigating climate change," because "livestock" as a concept have basically been abolished in the hypothetical. That feels disingenuous to me: the idea that ruminants provide essential ecosystem services in places that evolved alongside them is obvious to a point where it's almost tautological. It sounds like Monbiot's specifically against conflating "ruminant" and "livestock," given that "livestock" implies a relationship of food production that comes with a whole set of incentives and objectives. I'd love if anyone would have asked these speakers how they'd actually define the term "livestock," because I think that that would have been really illuminating. And if we're ignoring carbon dioxide, ignoring methane, decoupling the raising of cows from food demand and production, dismissing the value of the scientific method, and only talking about whether it's at all possible to use cows for good... accepting those terms would basically shut down all of the climate arguments against livestock production, but not in a way that leads to an interesting or productive debate. I don't think these speakers really agree deep down like some of the question-askers suggested, but I also don't think this debate actually got into any of the real differences in their approaches and ideology.

[@peterfoster8004]

Isn't the whole re-wilding concept a way remove small-scale, artisan farmers from the land so that corporate finance can take over? These areas won't be truly 'wild', they'll be isolated pockets away from urban areas, especially if they contain animals that may pose a threat to humans. Secondly, no one in this debate mentioned the industrial proccesses needed to turn plants into foods resembling meat or milk. The resulting products from these proccesses are not real food but highly proccessed gunge.

[@Sam-ug4xt]

Finally someone sees this! Its so obvious. All these estates wont have any obligation to turn their land over to food production and back to peasant farmers. They can continue to get subsidies to rewild. And then everyone eats sludge. I think the topic of cinversation and debate is a red herring. They had one with monbiot and Simon fairlie on this subject too and again its a red herring. The talk should be monoculture vs small scale farming. And the returning of land to farmers. Monbiot is just really well trained debater hes a journalist. And he goes against people who have worked and studied in their fields all their life and dont have the same eloquence. A politician technique. Be decieiving but sound charismatic.

[@anibaldamiao]

I agree. It's disgusting when science have been discovering so many adverse impacts from processed food, carbs and sugars on cancers, gut biome, alzeimer, etc.. The entire vegan and re-wilding movement wants corporate-owned food with zero resilience

[@ericboxer3053]

Correct the same big companies and gates funded ngos that pay for all the studies, and indeed pay for climate communists like monibots salary at the guardian....you can't trust anything that comes from these studies or out of monibots mouth

[@TheMid1900]

If you rewild and climate change is causing fires, you are creating a perfect wildfire scenario. Also where are we supposed to grow all this plant based food without farms? Animals provide the best natural fertilisers

[@paul756uk2]

Absolutely right. Something that the vast majority of low information people on here haven't got a clue about.

[@cheyuu7896]

The smartest and most observant guests with really intelligent questions and suggestions I’ve ever heard. 👍 for the guests and their questions. Seems like diversity is the answer in discussions as well as in nature. I believe that systems like permaculture, regenerative agriculture, agroforestry, restoration agriculture, etc. provide local adaptable solutions for any biome and ecoregion. It’s about respectful integration of the local boundary conditions to create adapted systems that sustainably provide for all forms of life. 🌱🌳👩🏼‍🌾🧑🏽‍🌾👨🏿‍🌾🐄🐖🐓🌻

[@graemeozzie2251]

What a complete trainwreck of a "debate". Both speakers I thought were talking straight passed each other. Monbiot was right to be annoyed by Savory who seemed to change the debate topic to suit his own agenda then demanded the format followed. Savory has some wisdom to share and important things to say but I thought he made a dog's breakfast at communicating. He could have made his broader points about human decision making whilst still sticking to the core topic of debate. Saying that.... I thought Monbiot was quite aggressive and unescessary rude towards an old man who is 87. He could have shown a bit more maturity there. Both men I thought were quite parochial and not very good listeners. I think the audience was probably left confused and not much more educated in the subject than when they arrived. 1/5 star debate. Pretty much a disaster all round.

[@csocseszbocsesz]

Savory is a conman, no respect for him.

[@graemeozzie2251]

@@csocseszbocsesz I don't think he's a con man in a malevolent sence. I think he genuinely believes he's "right" and I think he genuinely cares about the issues. His main problem is his social skills. He's a terrible communicator & listener. He doesnt seem to appreciate that there are hundreds of thousands of very smart people who are also working on the systemic policy issues he says no-one else is looking at. He misses huge opportunities for symbiosis by dismissing others in quite a patronising way (ie Greta, young people dismissed as "like pups not knowing what to do when they catch the car") As for his planned grazing methodology, I can tell you from experience (I run 5000 sheep on a regenerative farm in Australia) that to put into practice is very difficult. Especially in the semi-arid or temperate former grassland environments he advocates need restoring. Yes, grasses definatley respond positively to grazing off the oxidising old growth, but you still need the ability to destock rapidly, quickly and completely. What about water for livestock?? You need large robust selling and marketing systems, manage biosecurity risks. Can you imagine what a disaster something like a major foot and mouth disease outbreak would do to your perfect eco-grazing plan?? There's quite a lot economic, infrastructural, institutional, support networks needed that I think Savory is a bit dishonest about In any case, I'm in agreement with Monbiot that if livestock are to be used as a tool then really it's only practical to use them almost like an analogue for rewilding or mimicking herds, and not entirety depend on them for food. I think both Savory and Monbiot actually have lots of common ground but aren't listening to each other and talking past each other. The audience really were the only ones listening or at least trying to follow what was going on. Sort of embarresing really.

[@robertmcgovern1806]

@@csocseszbocsesz the evidence is against you.

[@csocseszbocsesz]

@@robertmcgovern1806 You were unable to show any evidence, try again!

[@alanmatthews6363]

Agreed. Disappointing non-debate. Wish I had my 2 hours back. I wanted to support Savory, but his ”argument" is just a bizarre mashup of anecdotes and sentiment. If you don't have experimental data, at least be able to hypothesize a mechanism. Sigh.

[@gavinbrinck]

At -37:40 , George doesn’t get to respond to Desertification . What are the solutions ? Thank you both for your dedication and work Thanks to the moderator as well Thanks to the college for hosting this and everyone who put this together. Both core issues climate change and desertification are essential points of discussion Can we have a ‘discussion’ instead of a debate next time ? Thank you all ✌️🤦💗💯🔥🐛🫐🐝☮️ The moderator doesn’t seem to prompt George to respond to desertification.. Alan seems genuine. I understand the big money lobbies, I’d love to see a discussion on desertification, fires, and biodiversity loss. Thank you Smartest man in the room -24:04 ; looking forward to Monbiot’s response(if the moderator allows 😊) 1:19 :00 - we still didn't address the young lady's question about fixing Desertification ? George bullying a genuine guy with hearing issues seems a little distasteful, but I do agree with George on a lot. got desertification ? i NEVER heard about how to reverse this from camp Monbiot. thank you all so much for your work. Looking forward to the future where we resolve these issues. wishing peace, love, health, harmony, and eternal regeneration and regenesis for all *peace*

[@diogenes1815]

It’s a frustration having questions stacked up like this. Allow an answer by question. This whole debate is very muddled, George didn’t help the elucidation of Alan’s points by being so aggressive. And Alan is really unclear on the basis of his philosophy, repeating aphorisms about deck chairs doesn’t make anything clearer. Net result: No wiser. And stopping really clear contributions from the audience from developing.

[@paulhindson]

I find this so frustrating. George Monbiot's comments are clear, well argued and supported by evidence. What more can he do? I find his analysis compelling but I am willing to listen to alternatives. The alternatives I heard here, not just from Alan Savory but also from members of the audience, seemed unclear, based on personal experience, based on personal belief systems, or, at times, strangely mystical. We are talking about a subject that threatens the longevity of the planet and until someone makes an argument that is remotely as coherent as George Monbiot's, then I back him 100%. His analysis presents a clear route to preventing climate devastation - let's follow it rather than let personal prejudice lead us to destruction.

[@auggieniopetch3045]

Are you on a salary, or just a natural stooge?

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

Only psychopaths support the barbaric "livestock" industry when it is proven that vegans are healthier (Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets, 2016) 👉 Dominion (2018).

[@lorrainegatanianhits8331]

George Monbiot knows nothing about Savoury's holistic management and holistically planned grazing. It's a VERY delicate idea, and I agree Savoury didn't make a good job of explaining it. He may not have had enough time for that. His TED Talk was more well-argued. But you really have to read his books to understand this concept fully, as it's so revolutionary.

[@debradelarue9717]

Maurice Strong came up with this climate change nonsense decades ago and geo engineering all over the planet paid for by globalists to meet their agenda, and convince the naive thst it'll end the planet, is part of nwo construct. Carbon is life. No carbon no life.

[@dbruce581]

He lost the debate in the opening monologue when he said he was assuming the world was Vegan, meaning no livestock. So how can he then argue that "livestock grazing is essential"? He was arguing that grazing animals are essential. Not livestock.

[@jamesgrover2005]

So I gather Alan's method is useful in very dry places that no longer have wild grazing herds. It *isnt* a cover story for the industrial meat industry (which is what it is being misused as).

[@zaluq]

Yes it is . Millions of regenarative farmers proves it

[@resilientfarmsanddesignstu1702]

Carbon need NOT be stored in the soil to be "sequestered". It can ALSO be stored in living biomass. The fact that the Carbon that we have released is accumulating in the atmosphere and in the water is precisely BECAUSE we are not facilitating and are in fact undermining its accumation in living plant and animal biomass. Thus the solution to the Carbon problem is to facilitate the uptake of Carbon by living biomass through massive ecological restoration efforts. This of course must be done properly or the life forms so created will simply die and return the Carbon back to the atmosphere and oceans or worse create additional ecological destruction thus adding to the Carbon pollution problem. See my other post for more details.

[@Cristina-gw5zp]

Allan is saying that we have a bigger problem to "carbonization": desertification which leads to, loss of water, no ability to grow food, people leaving and the heating of the earth (and which is caused by bad policy that has led us to a bad way to manage land and animal management. ) He's saying the solution to that is "rewilding": fix the soil, you stop desertification which is having a bigger impact on weather and climate change. (Bc soil holds carbon- heal the soil and you capture carbon. ) How to quickly fix the soil? Use animals and create biodiversity. And he's saying that in places where the earth was "better managed" (e.g., using the method of increasing biodiversity and healing the soil through animal and land management), there was quick recovery. Again, Allan is saying that if you heal the earth, return the animals and diversity which leads to soil health that holds the water and holds the carbon, you stop desertification which will have a positive effect on the negative effects of desertification which is climate change. George wants to focus on "carbon counting" but Allan is saying this new way of managing land is leading to visible results of land restoration (the opposite of desertification which is a bigger impact on climate change than anything else.) So if we can heal the land, does it matter that we're creating carbon and methane? If healing of the earth itself through improving the soil (which can hold more carbon), better water management and vegetation which holds heat and controls fires would lower the temperature of the earth and help us manage fires and "climate change" then the carbon we emit and the negatives of climate change would be mitigated.

[@tadblackington1676]

There is a huge hole in Monbiot's argument. He decries livestock for the ruminant methane involved but a truely rewilded landscape is also full of rumninants. If bison are good can cattle be inherently bad? The question we need to ask is whether the animals are fullfilling the processes the ecosystem needs them to? Secondly, arable farming is not sustainable in the least without a fallowing period involving livestock to regenerate the soil. Soils are based on a lot of litteral bullshit and we need to our heads around this. Finally livestock grazing allows food production on land not suitible for arable farming. This is important because if we are to meet the biodiversity crisis we will need to rewild some areas of prime arable land, such as the tallgrass prairies of North America, for the ecosystems and biodiversity they could support. To spare some prime farmland, some less than prime farmland needs to produce. Grazing livestock is the most important means of doing that.

[@csocseszbocsesz]

Nature can't sustain the number of ruminants we force into the world, we had to cut forests to feed them. We don't need any animal food, not all land must be stolen from nature.

[@Flumstead]

@@ceeemm1901 You are forgetting about the volume of animals in the oceans.

[@ceeemm1901]

@@Flumstead Hahaha straight out of the Savory reply book. I'd love to drop acid and watch Alan Savory and Jordan Peterson try to out word salad each other.

[@tadblackington1676]

@@ceeemm1901 First I don't think I made any claims as regards to exact numbers. Second, how many of your 3.6 billion are being rasied on pasture and how many are being raised on grain? Finally we have no conception of how many animals were on the landscape. Even in very recent history there were tens of millions of bison on in North America. Then when we consider what was roaming the landscape in the late pleistocene when this current extinction event began.

[@erictorbet8104]

Back when there were a lot of bison, there was way more forest to help offset their methane emissions. In fact, the ruminants served to prevent Earth from being in a constant ice age. Also, there are more cows now than there were bison back then. I disagree that livestock are needed to regenerate soil. Just grow cover crops and use no-till techniques and the soil will thrive. If we all just stop eating meat, then 80% of farmland would no longer be needed, and could rewild and reforest, sequestering enough carbon to reverse climate change.

[@sierrabianca]

Having chosen the title for the debate, Savory then spends all his time arguing about a completely different topic. Frustrating.

[@anibaldamiao]

you're just not intelligent enough to understand that areas without moisture can't be bio-diverse without animals. That's when you see frustration on what Allan said. Anything else, even re-wilding, only happens with biodiversity because you can't rewild without biodiversity. Allan is wrong on some aspects, like cattle in the amazon that replaces forest (which is not the focus of his work) and both decide to talk over each other's heads by not realizing the difference

[@sierrabianca]

@@anibaldamiao And you're not smart enough to see that I never made such an argument. Where did I say that animals weren't needed for biodiversity?? Where did I mention moisture levels or differing biodiversity criteria? Please enlighten me as to where this whole argument which you've pulled out of thin air came from? Savory didn't address the topic outlined in the title. This led to them talking past each other. This led to frustration. End of story. The necessity of animals in fostering biodiversity isn't even up for discussion, it's essentially a truism. The issue was whether "grazing livestock" in particular are a net contributor to biodiversity, habitat regeneration and ultimately carbon capture...nothing you said addressed this.

[@rudypadillapadilla6372]

George keeps referring to the fact that he thinks Allen is talking about farming all this land. Allen is talking about restoring it to its natural state.

[@mayapapaya89]

Fantastic to hear George speak on this subject. The amount of fake news in livestock sector is out of control!

[@FiveSonsFarm]

Next time allow George and Alan and to respond after each question is asked. I enjoyed the video. TY

[@jwv7522]

A perfect example of a debate between a person who gets their hands dirty and a person who "researches".

[@Vscustomprinting]

Wrong. You are the perfect example of a cult of personality.

[@garagepie]

Our world was FULL of herbivores before we removed them... Deer, moose, elk, springbok, wildebeest, buffalo, bison.

[@justgivemethetruth]

I have to say that whatever point Savory is trying to make by repeating "fire" over and over is not really making sense. Or perhaps he is just not explaining it well?

[@clivepierce1816]

This debate was clearly destined to be a clash of cultures - on the one hand a coherent narrative supported by a vast body of peer reviewed science; on the other, a deeply personal perspective on biodiversity loss and desertification, informed by anecdotal evidence, pseudo-science and cognitive biases. While this was certainly a spectacle, as a retired scientist with expertise in the atmospheric and environmental sciences, I can only concur with those commenting here to the effect that the promotion of such an event by a scientific institution is deeply concerning, not to say embarrassing. It reminds me of BBC radio 4’s now notorious live ‘debate’ between a climate scientist and Nigel Lawson. In both cases, the broadcaster’s conflation of balance and impartiality led to an absurd spectacle in which the accumulated knowledge of western science was pitched against the hubris and ignorance of a single individual with no rigorous scientific evidence to support their arguments. Sadly, the fact that this was promoted at all appears to be a symptom of a wider cultural malaise, characterised by political and cultural leaders who not only denigrate and ignore science, but seem to delight in their own ignorance. This truly is an age of unreason.

[@brianwheeldon4643]

I couldn't agree more.

[@auggieniopetch3045]

Vast body of bought out, agenda driven propaganda crufted together by people who, at best, are afraid of challenging the establishment narrative and ruining their career.

[@lysianechagnonfontaine3696]

Well said.

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

Only psychopaths support the barbaric "livestock" industry when it is proven that vegans are healthier (Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets, 2016) 👉 Dominion (2018).

[@ricos1497]

I disagree, they were right to host it. Savory is not Lawson (Lawson was a fairly skilled politician, I'm not convinced Savory is converting many on that performance). He is an experienced man, with a huge following and an institute that influences the work of many farmers, who follow his methods - whether nonsense, or otherwise. I think it is fair game to argue against that body of work directly, because that's the reality on the ground.

[@gwr6305]

This was not a debate. This was cattle ranch/beef industry propaganda. Ridiculous from Oxford University to promote such event on this day and age. Most of the audience was directly connected to the cattle/livestock industry. Alan sounds like he lost his mind. His last words were just completely rubish, he did not adress the issue of the debate one single time. Actually he proposed we should ignore it. I'm sorry, but Oxford University is 100% guilty to promote such BS. George made a huge effort to try to bring the discussion to rhe topic at hand, but nor the audience nor the moderator seamed to care. Frankly is hard not to think this was a setup from the farming/livestock sector promote BS and try to discredit Monbiot. It's shame that Oxford University is involved with this kind of practice. How can anyone take Alan seriously? Livestock promotes biodiversity? What the hell? Were does he think all this desertification comes from? All this hot weather and dryer spells that help the deserts of the world to grow? He does not even acknowledge that science works.

[@aidanmcparland6853]

For real. It was the greatest tell when Allan said it's not about carbon. "Re-arranging the deck chairs"??? Give us a fucking break.

[@Flumstead]

@@aidanmcparland6853 Carbon is not a problem, it is benefitting the growth of vegetation. The problem is the loss of biodiversity.

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

Only psychopaths support the barbaric "livestock" industry when it is proven that vegans are healthier (Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets, 2016) 👉 Dominion (2018).

[@compostjohn]

I've never taken Savory seriously, ever since his TED talk where he claimed we could 'reverse climate change by farming beef'. I'd never heard such ignorant twaddle, but like any good scientist I have tried to find sense in 'holistic livestock farming' arguments and questioned my own perspectives. However, I have never understood where Savory is coming from, other than a desire to be a beef farmer and think he has a clean conscience when it comes to the global impacts of that industry.

[@spijkerpoes]

@@Flumstead The rate of change in carbon is the problem for biodiversity, (next to another host of problems)it's getting warmer very fast so things need to migrate fast. Oaks are not fast. Also, farms and cities and humans overall are in the way. Saying carbon feeds plants is a lame simpleton half-truth. Humans need salt. Try eating 2 pounds of it in one session.

[@thomasward2165]

Allan's very last comment has some merrit concerning policy. But, policy is based on human knowledge. Human knowledge is based on science. Feelings are how we register our emotion about something, and that seems to be Allan's conversation piece. The basis on which to change policy is evidence, not anecdotes.

[@IjzermanPieter]

There was a word that Allan uses and that apparently nobody heard. Holistically. That is why he stresses to not focus on one aspect, like CO2. Without a holistic approach desertification will kill nature and thus people. That is proven as desertification is continuing. And it is not because of Co2 levels as they are still relatively low and came from dangerously low. CO2 is plant food. Why are there not growing more plants then? Because diversity is lost.

[@williamconsidine]

Monbiot is a journalist and campaigner with a flimsy grasp of science, He complained that Savory wanted to speak about oxidation rather than Carbon. He clearly does not know that CO2 is Oxidised Carbon. Oxidation is a primary cause of Climate change.

[@jockmoron]

No it isn't. Monbiot knows that CO2 is "oxidised carbon", honestly. Talk about a reverse argument. So we "oxidise" carbon when we burn carbon containing fossil fuels. We do that to get the energy from this exothermic chemical reaction. But it's the product of this reaction that escapes into our atmosphere and causes global warming. The product is CO2 and it accumulates in the atmosphere as a global warming gas. Your argument make as much sense as claiming when your house is flooded in some storm, that it's the oxidation of hydrogen that is the cause. Your argument is just absurd.

[@knoll9812]

He studies the science If oxidation is as simple as you say would have been an easy point for savory to make.

[@FranciscoKGuerreiro]

What is the point of the last comment of Allan Savory? Wishfull thinking with "team Humanity"? Beautiful words full of nothing.

[@AlejandroCarrillo-vm3tm]

Inform yourself about the great work we are doing greening the Chihuahuan desert with Holistic Management.

[@FranciscoKGuerreiro]

@@AlejandroCarrillo-vm3tm Allan could not even explain in what the Holistic Management consists. And this lecture was all about that.

[@ricos1497]

@@FranciscoKGuerreiro obfuscation.

[@mannatuu]

The elephant in the room remains. The transformation of production is a social question based on who and what interest is to be served. Whether it is the ruling classes for 'profit 'or whether it is the vast majority of the world's population , the working class, for 'need'. Whatever the relative and absolute truths discussed here , non can come into being in a world heading for World War 3 and irreversible climate change , principally due to the insoluble debt crisis of global capitalism ,that is driving competing ruling classes to WW3, and that never even got a mention. Whether the middle classes like it or not , they will not decide the future of humanity , only the world working class will do that. You are either with it , or you on the side of human extinction...period, because that is where capitalism is heading.

[@paddydiddles4415]

It seems like the loss of biodiversity and desertification is a separate subject from climate change

[@nicolajames5139]

George - thanks for agreeing to do this. I feel your frustration.

[@tman250]

Many comments indicate that Allen Savory did not address the topic of the debate, yet he actually did. It seems that George Monbiot, much of the audience, and initially myself, overlooked his points. The debate's topic was "Is livestock grazing essential to mitigating climate change?" and not the following: * Does livestock grazing lessen global warming? * Does livestock grazing decrease atmospheric carbon? * Does livestock grazing reduce greenhouse gases? George Monbiot has erroneously merged the concepts of climate change with global warming and increased atmospheric carbon. However, these are distinct issues. We observe climate change through various signs: * Regions experiencing more severe temperature fluctuations, making them less habitable * An increase in extreme weather events globally * Farmland becoming unusable due to these changes * Coastal land loss due to rising sea levels Research has shown a link between rising greenhouse gases and global temperature increases, which are further associated with climate change. Thus, reducing greenhouse gases has been identified as crucial to addressing climate change, a viewpoint endorsed by George Monbiot. Allan Savory, however, holds a different view. He believes the key to combating climate change lies in halting desertification, based on the following: * Deserts experience extreme temperature variations, making them inhospitable * Desertification alters local weather (reduced rainfall and changed precipitation patterns can lead to unexpected severe weather elsewhere) * Desertification decreases an area's ability to withstand extreme events (deserts flood in rain, whereas grasslands absorb water) * Such conditions render the land unfarmable Desertification does not directly affect rising sea levels, but one could argue that the broader loss of usable land poses a greater threat to humanity than the loss of coastal areas or islands. This perspective leads Allan Savory to dismiss the sole focus on carbon. To George Monbiot, this dismissal seems to equate to disregarding climate change altogether, prompting him to accuse Allan of straying from the debate topic. However, Allan consistently focused on the central issue. Allan Savory, who is neither a professional debater nor an academic, approaches problems uniquely. If it were up to him, he might frame the debate as: "Desertification has a greater impact on climate change than greenhouse gases, and livestock grazing is crucial in preventing desertification." Here, Allan would argue his case, while George would present opposing views. George would need to concede that even a carbon-negative scenario is problematic if our lands become deserts, rendering the world uninhabitable and limiting food production. The escalation of severe weather and temperature fluctuations would mean climate change remains unchecked. Therefore, the priority should be stopping land desertification, with greenhouse gas concerns following. Allan argues that the most effective strategy against climate change is to transform borderline deserts into thriving grasslands through specific grazing practices he advocates. The only arguments George could make against this are: a) Providing proof that Allan’s proposed grazing methods do not halt desertification b) Demonstrating that increased greenhouse gases contribute more to desertification than poor grazing and farming practices Since George’s debate focused solely on carbon sequestration, he failed to effectively challenge Allan’s position. All he succeeded in doing was conflating climate change with global warming and greenhouse gases, and then convincing his audience to do the same. A clue to Allan’s different viewpoint came early in the debate when he suggested, "let’s assume the soil captured zero carbon and that animals released 20 times the greenhouse gases they actually do". A more articulate presentation by Allan or a more balanced and less confrontational approach by George, along with a genuine effort to comprehend Allan’s arguments, might have resulted in a more enlightening debate.

[@PeterBruce]

So what do you do with grasslands George? Pastures also transpire and contribute to the production of hydroxyl - the main oxidiser of methane.

[@anabolicamaranth7140]

I bought a cattle ranch a few years ago and don’t have any animals and the pastures are still intact and transpiring. More diverse plant forms have also began to appear.

[@leelindsay5618]

Areas of the midwest - like New Mexico and Arizona are now bare dirt and creosote bush with nearly no grazing animals left. With cattle grazing mimicking migrating herds, the grasses come back and the carbon trampled plus the mulching with manure and urine, the bare ground is covered again and wild species then have habitat - bugs, birds, other grazing animals, predators, and still there is space for the cattle.

[@anabolicamaranth7140]

@@leelindsay5618 Interesting claim. I grew up on a farm that was tilled and after we left the county turned it into Blues Creek Park near Ostrander OH. No cows or other animals were placed on it and it has grown back into a mixture of grass and trees with lots of birds, turtles, etc. No cows.

[@zaluq]

Why nobody asked the question that methane is only a climate gas in lack of oxygen ? Like Venus , not Earth

[@be6926]

George doesn’t get it: the regeneration of biodiversity IS more important than measuring greenhouse gases. Climate change can no more be stopped than the tides. Ask Canute. But looking after biodiversity can mitigate the inevitable effects of climate change

[@michasosnowski5918]

So Allans argument is that it doesnt matter if animal grazing produces CO2 and methane, becouse if all land goes to desert we are doomed. George says on the other hand that it doesnt matter that land and biodiversity is restored, if that produces additional CO2 and methane - which would further accelerate global warming(that was the theme of the debate). These are two separate topics. Desertification and global warming. Seems like solving one of them is causing the other, and the opposite. Both provided some interesting arguments, but both were debating different topic. And Allan chose the topic of the debate, which I feel like was set up for George, becouse he declined to debate it. Kind of crazy.

[@MrHobbes6]

I almost cannot believe the unhinged, word-salad absurdities coming from Savory. What's worse is that anyone takes him seriously. And while I appreciate that Monbiot has good reasons for wanting to avoid ad hominem, it is galling that Savory can stand there talking about his political and military past without having to account for his origins in violent white supremacy. His past isn't irrelevant; he's just wearing a different face of white supremacy now.

[@deborahdale]

Savory has/is proving what he says he’s walking the walk.. what is unhinged is your ideology

[@gregoryjames165]

If you hate white supremacy so much, why don't you get off KZbin. All the technology it depends upon was an outcome of White supremacy.

[@casualobserver2380]

When someone drops the "white supremacy" accusation these days, that's an excellent indicator that they themselves are unhinged.

[@AlejandroCarrillo-vm3tm]

Are you living on the past or shall we live on the present and future. We are GREENING THE DESERT with livestock, period.

[@jamesdecross1035]

What an abusive comment.

[@MNMR45]

I am astonished that Oxford University invited Savory. His claims are pseudo-science and everybody knows it. Even the University itself officially debunked "regenerative grazing" in the study: "Grazed and Confused?" A classic example of "false balance" which I would not have expected from that highly renowned university.

[@MrHobbes6]

The moderator should be embarrassed for working so hard to save Savory from himself.

[@AlejandroCarrillo-vm3tm]

You are so far from the solid results we are getting from regenerative ranching in the largest desert in North America, the Chihuahuan Desert. Do your homework and stop making non-sense comments.

[@timkbirchico8542]

@@AlejandroCarrillo-vm3tm could you give an internet address where we can see your results and make our conclusions?

[@ceeemm1901]

If Kings were allowed to have clowns and court jesters for entertainment, then why can't us plebs have Alan Unsavory for a few laughs....

[@ceeemm1901]

@@AlejandroCarrillo-vm3tm where's these "solid results"?...Oh Oh the dog ate them.....

[@neilmarsh8014]

There is so much more to this. All land is not created equal, and you can't apply blanket statements. For example, the deep black carbon-rich prairie soils of North America were formed over thousands of years of heavy grazing by bison and other ruminants. When converted to farmland, these soils lost much of their carbon. Grazing with cattle on these lands can be harmful or beneficial to the soil, depending on how it is done, and this is where Alan's wholistic management system shines. On the other hand, converting wild land, especially tropical rainforest, to grazing is hugely destructive to biodiversity. Furthermore, forests and grasslands exist(ed) in different regions because the local climates are suitable for one or the other, and the soils that result are very different. Blanket statements and universal methods do not apply. As correct as George is that humanity needs to eat less meat, a great deal of land is unsuitable for cropping. Much of this is land that has been degraded by cropping or by bad grazing practices. Alan's methods, done correctly and attuned to the local environment, can restore the soil along with a great deal of biodiversity while also feeding people. Rewilding by grazing: talk about a win-win! George is also quite correct on several points. There is not nearly enough research being done, and the whole carbon-offset industry is rife with fraudulent claims. Both of these gentlemen have a lot to say of great value and it is a shame that the debate was framed the way it was.

[@christophjensen9530]

a comment from Antoine de Saint-Exupery: Ascension (and ‘Social Distancing’, C.J.) It seems our Ascension is not yet finished, That yesterday’s mistakes feed tomorrow’s truth, And that the right soil for our growth Is the obstacles that we must overcome. We also include the passer’s-by So other than us they are. What strange companions we make! Based on what’s to come, not what has been, on the far-off goal, not on distant origins ... We are pilgrims, walking different ways to a common home. Why is the world failing ... that I can tell you, even when it is too late to remedy: Because the gap has grown too great, that separates each one from the other. Yes, because the gap has grown too great. Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[@georgewalker6883]

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.

[@erictorbet8104]

Savory, when coherent, made the incredible claim that grass chokes itself out if not grazed, mowed, or burned, and then becomes desert. Is there any scientific proof of this? I've only read the opposite, that overgrazing is what causes desertification.

[@AlejandroCarrillo-vm3tm]

Allan Savory is right, I personally do not care about scientific proof, we are greening the desert on a large scale. Nowadays most land is becoming deserts because of lack of grazing, not overgrazing, update your knowledge and observe.

[@erictorbet8104]

@@AlejandroCarrillo-vm3tm Maybe the desert would green even faster without grazing? There are many examples of the land recovering from cow grazing. Lack of grazing causing desertification is a pretty wild claim. It needs solid proof (i.e. science).

[@timskerratt]

You need to consider brittle vs non-brittle environments. Alan mentions in this debate and every piece he's published that he's not referring to non-brittle environments eg. UK, Brazil (I think the eg he used in this debate). Brittle environments make up over half/two-thirds of the planet. Every farm that is ever left fallow in a brittle environment would be left with oxidising grasses/plants that have/are releasing carbon into the atmosphere and blocking light reaching growing points of new plants. They will at least stagnate but likely biologically regress. There is lots of research around this.There is insufficient moisture in brittle environments for the biological process to perform the nutrient cycling necessary for biological succession to progress. I believe the person in the green shirt made the correct comment at the end of the debate. Part of the problem with the debate was that Alan is considering desertification of the majority of the planet as the major risk (macro scale) and George is considering the lack of rewilding in non-brittle environments to be the major problem. I don't think the research would support Alan in these environments, for what it's worth, probably because holistic planned grazing is hard and not done well by the most well-intentioned farmers let alone the dairies/ranches used in most studies. They both want increased landscape function, biological diversity or rewilding, whatever you want to call it. They are just referring to different environments and contexts.

[@AlejandroCarrillo-vm3tm]

Interesting comments. I have been traveling around the globe assisting ranchers , pastoralists and farmers on regenerative approaches. Places that were not considered brittle and now becoming deserts. and we are actually desertifying areas that were actually not considered brittle.

[@AlejandroCarrillo-vm3tm]

Former grasslands will not recover without grazers and graziers, BUT most places we help need an immediate rest, then rational grazing with livestock at higher densities with long rest periods to start the healing process. We have seen an incredible increase of all kinds of life, from insects to birds and mammals.

[@tman250]

Many comments here suggest that Allan Savory didn't address the debate's title, but he actually did. It's just that George Monbiot, most of the audience, and I (for a while) missed it. I thought it worthwhile to post this a few times in a few different areas of the comments section because Allen's arguments are worth understanding. The debate's title is "Is livestock grazing essential to mitigating climate change?" It is not about: * Will livestock grazing reduce global warming? * Will livestock grazing reduce atmospheric carbon? * Will livestock grazing reduce greenhouse gases? George Monbiot conflated climate change with global warming and increased atmospheric carbon. However, these are distinct concepts. We notice climate change through: * Greater temperature extremes in various places (e.g., shifting from very hot to very cold), making them hard to live in * More extreme weather events globally * The inability to farm due to these changes * Loss of coastal land from rising sea levels Scientists have found a correlation between increasing greenhouse gases and rising global temperatures, linking these temperatures to climate change. They thus conclude that reducing greenhouse gases is crucial for combating climate change, a view George Monbiot supports. Allan Savory, however, disagrees. He believes that combating desertification is the key to addressing climate change, reasoning that: * Deserts experience extreme temperature swings (very hot days and very cold nights), making them uninhabitable * Desertification alters local weather patterns (e.g., reducing rainfall and creating conditions for extreme weather elsewhere) * Desertification reduces an area's resilience to extreme weather (e.g., deserts flood while grasslands absorb water) * These factors make the land unfarmable Desertification doesn't directly impact rising sea levels, but it can be argued that the loss of farmable or habitable land poses a greater threat to humanity than the loss of some coastal areas. This is why Allan Savory says "forget carbon." To George Monbiot, this equates to "forget climate change," leading him to accuse Allan of not addressing the debate's title. However, Allan was always focused on the core issue. Allan is not a trained debater or academic. He approaches problems differently. If I were him, I would frame the debate as follows: "Desertification impacts climate change more than greenhouse gases, and livestock grazing is essential to stopping desertification." Allan would then support this statement, while George would argue against it. George would then have to admit that even with negative carbon emissions, we are in serious trouble if our land becomes desert. The world becomes unlivable, people can't feed themselves, and extreme weather events increase. In other words, climate change would still be rampant. Therefore, halting desertification must be prioritized over concerns about greenhouse gases. To Allan, the most effective way to combat climate change is to graze animals on borderline desert land using his grazing management techniques, transforming it into lush grassland. George can contest this only by: a) Providing evidence that Allan's grazing techniques do not stop desertification b) Demonstrating that rising greenhouse gases cause more desertification than improper grazing and farming practices Since George's debate focused on carbon sequestration, he couldn't directly challenge Allan's point. Instead, he led the audience to misunderstand Allan's argument. You'll notice Allan began by saying, "let's assume the soil captured zero carbon and that animals released 20 times the greenhouse gases they actually do." This was a significant clue that Allan was presenting a different perspective. If Allan were more articulate or if George were more balanced and less angry, making an effort to understand Allan's point, the debate could have been more productive.

[@resilientfarmsanddesignstu1702]

What about mob grazing, heavily grazing a small area while allowing other ungrazed areas to grow tall deep-rooted grass? Once grazed, these deep roots die back depositing and sequestering Carbon deep in the soil. And what about biochar? This recalcitrant form of Carbon charcoal persists in the soil for 100s of years as demonstrated by the Amazonian accumulations known as Terra Preta. It was created by villagers clearing land for horticulture/agriculture. There is certainly ample evidence of that. It is therefore possible to ranch and farm in a near net zero manner. What we can’t do is mechanized industrial ranching and farming. That is the source of agricultural Carbon emissions.

[@jhaduvala]

It's tragic to watch this when two people I hold in regard become polarized. Monbiot is quite vicious and insulting; which doesn't do him any favours. He wants to reduce the whole matter to the idea of carbon storage, and his "solution" is...we all go vegan and rewild everywhere. That seems a bit idealized and memic, even if it's valid. Would it work? The "difference of opinion" seems to be that Monbiot is talking about "ideal" situations, whereas Savory is talking about a practical system that he has experience in. Savory has been out in the field for decades restoring - even if not rewilding - land. And while Monbiot keeps saying "show me the evidence" there is measurable science that he seems to want to ignore or deny. The audience seems to get it, while Monbiot doesn't. At 1.05 Monbiot says you CAN use livestock as a conservation tool. But then he changes the subject to food production in order to criticize the same thing. Yet only moments before he points to new methods of food production that will replace livestock. The two things - livestock to regen the land, and food production - are TWO different subjects. If he can say (as he did) that there are contexts where livestock ARE a conservation tool; then there is no debate. Saying that the method of doing that is not good for food production...is a whole other subject. A subject that he apparently offerred an answer to only moments before. And what's weird is, he goes on to say these two things are conflated and we must be careful of doing that. But he just did it!! He says : "Grass fed beef is the greatest driver of habitat destruction on Earth today." But that's NOT what Savory is doing. He's NOT creating pastureland on top of functional habitat. He's putting pastures into dessicated land, by rebuilding the soil, and using livestock to do it. He's not focused on food production. He's focused on rebuilding the soil. I think Monbiot is misreading data. He says @1.08 "grassland sequesters more carbon when the livestock are removed". Fine, but Savory is not talking about grassland with livestock (i.e. healthy pastures); he's talking about dessicated land. Removing livestock from grassland will allow grass and other plants to grow...so OBVIOUSLY you get more carbon sequestered via increased plant matter. But...Savory is talking about taking dessicated land with sparse or no plant material, and running livestock on it, in a managed way, so that the soil is restructured and grassland REGROWS. Am I missing something? Or is Monbiot aiming at the wrong targets? I respect the guy for his passion, but he is not ALWAYS correct, even though he presents with such authority, like so many media people.

[@4thbrooker]

No, you're not missing something. Not from my estimation at least. I've read a bunch of the comments here and I think yours is the most on point. It seems that the majority of people in this comment section literally have no clue what Allan Savory's Holistic Management actually is. And Monbiot seems to have forgotten what it actually is as well.

[@leelindsay5618]

Exactly - George Monbiot is talking methane after Allan Savory said put that aside. George still has not answered if livestock are essential or not. What is George's solution for oxidation of grasses and putting carbon back in the soil? Growing trees for 25-40 years then cut them down an bury them so they don't burn? Or trampling grass 1-5 times per year plus mulching it out the back end of the cow? I'll take the second option please....the side product is meat, milk, cheese.

[@jackson8085]

Really you are completely missing the point. Savory may have a less bad method of rewilding a very specific landscapes using cattle, but beef still uses 70% of all arable land and supplies less than 2% of calories. That's not sustainable.

[@jhaduvala]

@@jackson8085 You're conflating food production with land restoration. Savory is not using arable land. He's restoring dessicated land, and making it arable. You could then "get rid" of the cattle and grow any plants you like on it. Storing more carbon. How else do we restore dessicated land? With machines? With vast human labour? As for food production, take your pick. It's a separate issue. As far as calories go, they're not a good food measure of value. If all we needed was calories, we could grow endless sugarcane and live off sugar. Again, Savory is restoring dessicated land and making it arable; he's not running cattle on arable land and denying other food production.

[@jackson8085]

@@jhaduvala I'm not conflating anything, we are simply talking past each other. Cattle livestock are by far the largest contributor to land desiccation to begin with, but you seem hyper focused on one very specific use case that hasn't been proven to work better than simply returning the land to nature. But for arguments sake let's assume you are right, then, if you're only point is that we can use cattle in very specific grassland situations to "restore" the land, whatever that means, ok great, we still have to feed 7+ billion people and those calories aren't coming from beef. The vast majority of cattle production is happening in a manner that is destroying the planet. It's beyond ridiculous and needs to stop for us to have any hope of limiting climate change. As for food production being "separate", well it may be separate, but it's vastly more important. We have 7+ billion people on the planet, how do you propose we feed them? If we have to be fed on the 70% of arable land going to cattle, yet we primarily get our calories from plants, then we would need to destroy even more land to continue feeding people more beef. Clearly, this is not sustainable. The point was made in the video, everyone going vegan would negate 19 years of status quo carbon release. Having said that I'm not vegan, but I don't eat beef for environmental reasons. Calories are not irrelevant either, what else do you think people eat? But we know Savory and others don't like metrics, they don't want to have to answer to scientific scrutiny, better to stick to lofty unscientific terms like "restoration" "dessicated", etc. that can't be measured, then they can never be wrong.

[@jolindo6724]

WOW the arrogance of George that he is right and beyond being open to any other view scares the hell out of me. Gods complexity of creation and its inter depenancy is beyond him. Those like him are the problem and his aggressive rudeness was unwarranted

[@stickyreturn]

George isn't arrogant, he is frustrated by Allan's nonsense.

[@jackson8085]

This is the age where people like jolindo are offended by science and reason. It's quite troubling to see the assumption that those who don't subscribe to the same religious beliefs are somehow ignorant or problematic. We must recognize that diverse opinions and beliefs exist, and it's unjust to label someone as 'the problem' based on their personal views. Respectful dialogue and understanding can foster a more accepting environment, rather than hypocritical aggressive and unwarranted rudeness.

[@user-uf3pk9rk4h]

I salute Allan's diligent research findings. George, rather than reducing the number of ruminants and using chemical fertilizers, why doesn't the scientific community begin studying these issues if they require evidence? While crops can be grown with the help of fertilizers, what about the billions of bacteria that are part of the ecosystem? Why is the conservation of biodiversity of interest to the scientific community? Vegetation and cattle interact with one another. Although reducing their population won't solve the problem, alternative approaches, such as modifying feed composition and rumen microbial manipulation, can lower emissions. One more thing: nature has created everything in balance; if we struggle to reduce methane continuously, one day, that will also make a problem.

[@wozzaladers3244]

Allan Savory doesn't explain HOW cattle remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it, he doesn't explain what process he used from the military to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, with respect he doesn't really make an argument at all? George Monbiot explained in reasonable and accessible detail how and why livestock and grassing are releasing more carbon to the atmosphere. After listening to this debate with an open mind, I am now more certain than ever that live stock agriculture must change if we are to save our environment from further disaster!

[@mildredthill2868]

the thing is before humans came on the scene there were deer , or bison, or elephants or musk oxen or zebras or wildebeests who roamed the arid grassland and interacted with the biology of the area to maintain the environment. Their dung became fertilizer and provided food for dung beetles who in turn fed birds and so on. The plants that required grazing still exist and Allan’s research which he did a poor job of explaining in this discussion, showed that nature, when man allows predators or mimics predators by moving his herds, does better. The main point Savory tried to make is that nature is too complex to fit into a scientific experiment. Scientific experiments require consistency and the ability to be duplicated and no conditions of weather can ever be duplicated exactly from year to year. As a scientist, the science had told him that elephants were damaging the park. So he killed elephants by the thousands and desertification increased. That practical experiment proved that the conventional scientific wisdom was wrong. When both elephants and their natural predators were brought back, the land regenerated, the rivers flowed again. Farmers who use regenerative agriculture see the benefits to their soil, they have more native species of butterflies, birds and smaller mammals than neighbors do. They have moisture in the soil that protects them from drought, while the soil is able to absorb a sudden downpour effectively instead of being washed away as happens in neighbouring farms.

[@be6926]

George has never farmed food. I presume he eats the stuff. Maybe he should be grateful that other people like Alan are trying to grow his food in the most environmentally friendly way possible

[@ChrisInToon]

nah of course not, he is a spiteful mutant, he hates the world left him courtesy of our collective ancestors.

[@krism6260]

Feeding livestock instead of people is never a good way to feed people.

[@angeladwyer3594]

His arguments are unsupported by science, he misses so many points that good grazing does as restore native species and keep that land from being sold to developers.

[@kateroberts2022]

This is a perfect example of why our organisation is called 'How the Earth Thinks'. The earth thinks like a web and so must we in order to work with it. Firstly, there are so many other threads (in the web) to this debate. Secondly, If an argument back to one thread doesn't understand all the implications of that thread -then the response becomes pointless. Thirdly, the weighting of each thread needs to be given by both sides in order to make an in depth analysis. Our brains can't think/respond like this in a debate -we need thinking techniques that aren't taught in schools and universities.

[@MrAvant123]

What no one ever mentions, when they are busy rubbishing pastoral farming, is the 1000's of acres used to produce maize and other crops for the making of bio-ethanol for petrol. So we use prime farmland and loads of diesel fuel to create ethanol that makes petrol worse and cars less efficient !

[@B_Ruphe]

Phasing out of livestock farming will lead not to Monbiot's romantic rewilding scenario, but to the replacement of those ranchlands and meadows with... a nightmare of intensive monocutlure soya cropland (herbicides, monsnto, field enlargement, unemployment resulting from by automated sowing spraying and reaping, soil replacement with chemical fertilizers, etc. etc.)

[@REGENETARIANISM]

From a soil science perspective, Monbiot's opening comments are easy to deconstruct. Either he's unaware of or doesn't understand any of the recent soil & range science that he claims to have read and asserts is so definitively on his side. He also doesn't see to be aware of the full extent of land degradation or how ruminants cycle both nutrients AND microbes. or for that matter how soil organic matter [SOM] is formed. With soil erosion and w/o new SOM formation, there's not going to be much plant succession because soil succession has to happen first. Though Monbiot really has no clue how semi-arid and arid ecosystems work. Most importantly, he doesn't seem to understand, that the enteric CH4 ruminants produce is the same CO2 captured via photosynthesis, converted to a chain of glucose (cellulose) than further converted to SCFA's and CH4 before being broken back down to CO2 and H2O by hydroxyl radicals. This is what I call the PMOH cycle and described in this blog: lachefnet.wordpress.com/2022/07/13/the-pmoh-cycle/ Per this study, less than 8 to 14% of cellulose cattle consume is converted to CH4 in the rumen: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9030782/ So basically every time ruminants cycle CO2 fixed as cellulose to SFCA's/CH4 back to CO2 & H2O via tropospheric OH, most of the fixed CO2 is converted to other carbon compounds and a lot less ends back in the atmosphere with or without any short of long term soil carbon storage ....though most exuded carbon from plants ends up as necromass (dead soil microbes) which bound to minerals is recalcitrant. Any mycorrhizal fungi networks also are huge carbon pools. 90% of these networks are arbuscular in grassland ecosystems. So here's another paper Monbiot is obviously unaware of: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37279689/ The arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi [AMF] networks also access the minerals needed to form MAOM (mineral associated organic matter) which again is more recalcitrant (ie stays in the soil and isn't transient (labile carbon). In healthy soils, also other sources of nitrogen are available thanks to rhizophagy...something Dr. Lal isn't up to speed on. Super oxides produced by plants strip the nitrogen out of the walls of bacteria being consumed (bacteria is about 20% N), plus endophytes (bacteria in plants) produce nitric oxide that when combined with super oxides forms nitrates readily used by plants (see this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pHPIk42pls2Sa6c ). So no additional nitrogen has to be added to the ecosystem as an external input. I also discuss that in this blog: lachefnet.wordpress.com/2022/09/27/endophytes-rhizophagy-and-one-health/ AMF are also able to source nitrogen from organic nitrogen (free amino acids). Where do these come from? Again from necromass. This paper deals with that: researchgate.net/publication/331894770_The_Role_of_Mycorrhiza_in_Transformation_of_Nitrogen_Compounds_in_Soil_and_Nitrogen_Nutrition_of_Plants_A_Review AMF also reduces N2) emissions: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36041174/ Well managed grazing allows AMF networks to flourish by keeping root systems intact. Grazing the tops off of plants actually redirects carbon in phoelm of a plants vascular network to go into the soil rather than to seed. Ruminant saliva also increases plant growth. Though suppose Monbiot didn't read either of these papers as well: researchgate.net/publication/262372509_The_effect_of_solid_cattle_manure_on_soil_microbial_activity_and_on_plate_count_microorganisms_in_organic_and_conventional_farming_systems researchgate.net/publication/262956328_The_effect_of_bovine_saliva_on_growth_attributes_and_forage_quality_of_two_contrasting_cool_season_perennial_grasses_grown_in_three_soils_of_different_fertility As for rewilding, grasslands had lots of ruminants even in the UK (wisent, auroch, Irish Elk, etc). Both wild and domesticated ruminants emit methane. So as @PabloPastos ' recent paper nature.com/articles/s41612-023-00349-8 demonstrated, grassland ecosystems with domesticated or wild ruminants produce similar amounts of methane. Re-establishing or "rewilding" beavers also increases methane. Why? Up to 53% of all CH4 emissions come from aquatic environments. I cite this source (Rosentreter, J.A. et al 2021) and give more details in this blog: lachefnet.wordpress.com/2023/05/28/the-methane-chronicles-plus-why-you-cant-discuss-methane-without-discussing-hydroxyl-radicals/ Anyway, if I feel so inspired, I'll take a moment to deconstruct his arguments even further. But as usual, Monbiot has once again demonstrated he's still at the peak of Mount Stupid on the Dunning-Kruger Effect curve. So much of the soil science is relatively new and constantly evolving. Anyone who is so absolute really has no clue what he or she is talking about. Thus anyone who makes absolute and certain claims like Monbiot made is just a zealot with an agenda, not someone who thinks like a scientist.

[@miroirdusonge]

Thank you, finally a sane voice in the comments section. My faith in humanity is restored for the day...

[@huntjo88]

Do you have any information on what a system like you're proposing can produce in terms of protein per hectare and how that correlates to the other various nutrients we need to grow? I'm always interested to get to the bottom line which is nutrient per acre....

[@mairmatt]

What is if Savior is working on solutions in the real world and Monbiot is working on winning debates in the ivory towers of academia?

[@kyleburdick8771]

Couldn't find anyone smart enough to debate Allan? I guess it's hard to find someone to argue for the incorrect side of the debate. All of history stands with animal activity being positive for the planet. Certainly not lately, but the prevalence of buffalo, elephants, whales, etc before we messed them up seem like pretty good cases of "the best way the planet can operate".

[@drsprof6295]

I tried out Savory's ideas in Pakistan for 4 years (1993-97. Total dry areas, only some trees in gullies. And it worked! Sad that he didn't explain well his system. x. hoove impact: Many animals together on a limited space create a disrupted soil (like powing). If this is in the right season plants will emerge. x. a grazing system: if grazing animals are there al the time, they kill the most palatable species of vegetation. Thus: ROTATION. x. You can use fire when you start. Many grasses die when not cut/grazed/ burned.

[@jackson8085]

The center of any regenerative effort is plants, not ruminants.

[@veganevolution]

I love Monbiot's energy. He doesn't throw the holocaust in your face for no reason. Even though the people are not all feeling a connection to our animal brother and sister species who live side by side, when they aren't violently oppressed, I have to appreciate Monbiot's endless matrix of factual data living around in his brain. Its why he has such a dorky persona, he is always reading and expressing facts like a computer designed to save earth. We all know it's wrong to hurt those who are weaker or more vulnerable than yourself. But you know what, I've had to learn myself how easy it is to be a bystander. We can change this world

[@justgivemethetruth]

He lives in an imaginary virtual world of his own imagination ... all he does is vomit words in social media for clicks. Monbiot is a toxic personality, and just trying to get attention while Savory is solving real problems in the real world.

[@suresh_elonbro]

not surprised allan didn't answer any questions and instead tried to create new questions to expand the debate. i wish monbiot tried to answer the question of what will work in dry grasslands which probably is not his expertise.

[@resilientfarmsanddesignstu1702]

George is correct on one thing. Tweaking industrial grazing (and I would include industrial farming practices as well) will NEVER work to reduce global warming but he is incorrect stating that ALL grazing practices are industrial and all grazing practices, whether industrial or not, are unsustainable and contribute to global warming. It was intended to be unsustainable so that escalating and expensive capital industrial inputs and fixes would be required to continue to implement it! What about mob rotational grazing that mimics natural herbivore herd behavior (something breed out of domestic cattle) that uses mobile fences to confine the domestic animals in a small area until everything is grazed before moving them, thus allowing grass to grow tall elsewhere before being grazed thus creating deep root dieback when eventually grazed thus sequestering Carbon deep in the soil where it cannot be "oxidized"? Virginia Tech AG department has published some field research on this management practice with various grass types.

[@Washpenrebel]

its easy to tell that George never grew a vegetable in his life.

[@johannesantila5738]

He is a vegetable himself. Living fat off Bill Gates' corruption money through the Guardian.

[@robertrackers3276]

It’s encouraging that the crowd seems to understand the natural process more than George, especially when his argument fell to pieces. Once he acknowledged that ruminants do serve an essential role in the process, the crowd saw it. he went in thinking he would be schooling the crowd and he instead got schooled by them. That was entertaining.

[@neilrobinson8101]

Of course he acknowledges it. He wants to reverse deforestation and see the country full of wild ruminants again. He's done plenty of research into the vital roll that ruminants have in natural ecosystems. He was just trying to keep the debate focused on climate, which is what it was supposed to be about - and the science is pretty clear on that. I get that Allan was highlighting the need to reverse desertification. This is important if it's possible. However George's argument to stop climate breakdown would prevent desertification. Even if desertification can be reversed, as Allan highlighted, millions of people will already be displaced. We must do everything we can to prevent it.

[@zaluq]

@@neilrobinson8101 But there mis more forrest today in the northern hemisphere than it was 200 years ago, most of the deforrestation is to soy crops , and its a lie that its for animals , its for oil unhealthy oil and biofuel , the husk they found out could be sold as animal food but that was landfill after oil production.

[@rogerdubarry8505]

monbiot simply lacks the bandwidth to understand Savory

[@adejnim]

23:13 Slaughterhouse workers are not Pasture-to-Plate Obstetricians. If you couldn't send your pet to a slaughterhouse you can have a meal fullfilling your nutritional needs (according to the Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics and the WHO) without the scenes which take place within the windowless buildings society rarely visits where bodies are turned into parts. Have you seen slaughter happen? Google Slaughterhouse workers PITS/PTSD. If it's too horrific for you to watch, can you really call it responsible to keep paying for it to happen? Google Poore & Nemecek 2018 and get so educated that you can tell your children you did your homework and made decisions which mattered for their future, mental health outcomes and chances at a happy life.

[@justgivemethetruth]

Maybe you can train the lions, tigers, bears, wolves to kill their prey more humanely. Killing and eating is killing and eating.