Seth J. Itzkan on the Savory & Monbiot discussion at Oxford University. July 11, 2023

[@dirkcampbell5847]

Yeah but Savory didn't say anything in the debate about what the policy is that he wants. It seemed like he was avoiding talking about it because he was trying to fob off Monbiot's objections, and that just didn't work, he ended up looking like he has Alzheimer's. Not helping the cause if he actually has a cause.

[@xaitramuntana1377]

I am a shepherd in Catalonia Spain . I know because i see it with my own eyes the benefits of grazing my sheep everywhere where i can . I also see the devastating consequences of absence of ruminants . At this moment more then 50% of the surface is occupied by forest due to lack of sheep and goats . The ecological value of these new forests is zero . The economical value is zero . The biodiversity is zero . And this is not sience but cold facts !

[@erictorbet8104]

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

[@xaitramuntana1377]

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

[@xaitramuntana1377]

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

[@xaitramuntana1377]

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

[@editing5157]

To be fair, when Monbiot was saying 'bullshit' he was saying it as a pan, tongue in cheek, but the I suppose the underlying message was still there - he claimed that Savory's work is unsupported.

[@peervossuruguayestancia5115]

I viewed you until 5:25. And I viewed that Oxford discussion video. You frequently start sentences with "what Mr Monbiot didn't understand..." I guess he mainly didn't understand how someone so well respected as Mr Savory could be so off topic all the time. I didn't understand that. Like Mr Savory didn't know what the subject of the evening was. Like thinking it was a discussion of livestock and soil health in semi arid grasslands. But no, it was meant as a discussion of global livestock and global greenhouse gas emission! I am a cattle rancher in Uruguay. Extensive cow + calf ranching on open rangeland . Believe me, I wish that extensive cattle ranching can be done, not harming climate. But so far there is no solution in sight. I hope since 30 years that science may come up with new cattle varieties that emit less methane. But so far it hasn't.

[@darrenivak4536]

Mr savior is a savior❤❤❤❤ I believe do you

[@jimmckinley8110]

I am a vegan and was quite impressed with Allan Savory and his points in this debate. I now understand the idea of oxidation as he was discussing thanks to Seth's explanation. What I now would like you to consider is whether these grassland areas are really suitable for modern cows and whether us raising them to be killed is the best way to regenerate these grasslands? Isn't it possible that calling for modern cows and other farm animals to fill a niche of herbivore on these grasslands is only because you want to eat them and feel justified in eating them? If regeneration of grasslands is really your concern, why not have animals that live their life on the grasslands inhabit them without the need for humans killing them. Surely there are ways to control the herbivore population on these grasslands without the motivation of putting their flesh on peoples plates. That is, if regeneration of the grasslands is Really the intent.

[@veganevolution]

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

[@tommybreen9677]

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

[@nefraial]

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

[@sookibeulah9331]

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

[@wildpatagoniafilms16]

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

[@h.e.hazelhorst9838]

I followed the Oxford lecture as well and you are probably right about animals needed to eat the grass in many areas where the climate doesn’t support woods. But that will solve only a desertification problem in these areas, not the food and climate crisis globally. There are simply too many people walking around, and too many of them who want to eat meat. The ‘big herds’ in Nth America (bison) and Africa (the savanne with zebras, gnus) probably are / were in equilibrium with their environment but that’s largely gone because of the population pressure.

[@authenticfoodco]

Golly gees the "debate" was such a debacle. Thank you Seth for explaining what the frick Alan was going on about. So turns out Alan was arguing that livestock can prevent desertification. George was saying that farmed meat animals produce more greenhouse gasses than they store. They were 'arguing' completely different and almost utterly unrelated points. And they were probably both right. What a waste of time!

[@dylanatkinson1426]

Just bumped into your video. Like a ray of sunshine. Bless you and thank you.

[@ricardogomesdequeiroz4599]

I wonder if the dry land area rules are that different from wet area rules. Are ecological indicators for health going to change? Having a forestry science and management background, as opposed to a livestock one I can’t agree to that. Looking a brittle environments through the eyes of grazing land is a reductionism as well. That’s when the holism gets real. When you realize social and economical decisions impact either we like it or not on the full capacity of an ecology. That’s for many reasons. Cultural eating habits, is one of them, for example.

[@DuncanPepper]

You can understand why George lost his patience. He’s desperately trying to find a solution by working through the data and Allan was offering no data. It’s only the future of humanity we’re talking about here! This wasn’t about winning or losing, but if it were Allan, who’s contributions could have been summarised by saying “ it’s a policy issue” - weren’t very robust

[@JJ-zg1hh]

I dont recall Monbiot ever saying that the land to be restored/rewilded should be devoid of ruminants and other animals. I imagine that he wants a full population native species of animals in addition to the land. Basically he wants to return it to a condition as designed by Mother Nature. Thats what i understood anyway. Savory's method seems to be that we should introduce ruminants and manage their numbers to control the land. That sounds like a receipe for human consumption of the meat, which is what we need to avoid.

[@danpowell7728]

Both so-called rewilding and holistic management are management. Rewinding is by definition management. This is not wild or natural. If it was we wouldn't need the word to describe it. Because the issues at hand are human influenced, we first need to acknowledge our responsibility to come up with a solution.

[@lukegardner6917]

Alan's work is the best option I've seen especially when you consider the sheer volume of metals and minerals needed for "green" energy

[@Vscustomprinting]

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

[@erictorbet8104]

Please point to a scientific paper that proves that leaving grass alone desertifies the land. Everything I've read says the opposite, and that actually it's over-grazing that desertifies it.

[@rocknrolla257]

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

[@erictorbet8104]

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

[@rocknrolla257]

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

[@henrydobson9419]

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

[@rocknrolla257]

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

[@andrewperkin2179]

Draw, but the audience was ready to attack Monbiot as he is a divisive figure. Disappointingly, Monbiot lost the highground a bit for me with his swearing. I'm big Monbiot fan and hes right on many things IMO and it would have be nice of them both to actually say what they agree upon. Savory used it as a platfom to promote his lifes work to a new audience, but did not debate the question at hand. Monbiot pushed hard but comes from a UK context which was mainly forest covered after the last ice age. The UK is so artificially modified its actually misleading to use it as an example since its wet and all habitats have been so modified by man. Savorys image of vast grasslands is a bit misleading as many of the worlds grasslands were or are wooded/shrubed. Savory calls the areas he knows in Zimbabwe and Zambia grasslands which is not strictly true, they are Brachystegia wooded grasslands, ie there are many trees, and have a large browsing community of mammals and well as grazers. Semi desert areas like the Namib and the Karoo are arguably not grasslands either but a delicate mix of shrubs, flowering plants and grasses hence the 'grazing' species are actually browsers eg antelopes with very few bovids. The sheep farms of the Karoo (N South Africa) destroyed one of the worlds great migrations of springbok. The migration of animals is also not something Savory did not mention - only people. He also didnt mention in this debate the migration of Europeans to N America and elimination the great grazing herds of bison and native Indians. Savory's focus on grasslands is good news for ranchers as it justifies ranching and meat consumption as an ecological good, he is a ranching hero figure. Not saying the holistic grazing is wrong,its seems effective in certain places, but I have an issue with the use of the label grassland as a blanket term, eg the Serengeti, yes its a grassland now but it was formed not so long ago by a huge volcanic eruption that covered that area in ash and killed all the vegetation (in a huge 'oxidation' event) and grass emerged in the fertile soils as the first coloniser and has been maintained by grazers, but with fewer grazers the acacia comboretum returns and browsing mammals start to dominate, its already happening some parts. If holistic grazing systems in N America do one good thing, it should be the elimination of store lot soy/corn fattened cattle and sheep which in term will help reforest the Amazon. Then maybe Monbiot would be happy too! As for the carbon debate, maybe thats for the next one.

[@erictorbet8104]

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

[@veganevolution]

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

[@BlueMountain25]

What Allan was trying to say is carbon isn’t the problem. It’s not what’s causing desertification. Rebuilding our desserts by using grazing and using holistic management will stop the desertification which will fix the carbon / global warming problem . Rebuild the soil / plant Silvopastures . Also plant more trees and native wild flowers along roads and walk ways in city’s etc .

[@granitfog]

The honesty in a debate depends on the elucidation of a mechanims of action (MOC). There is a clear MOC for climate change, for it's developement and progression, its consequences, and solutions for. All this talk about "policy" is a distraction from not elucidating the MOC for grazing as a answer to desertification and climate change. In fact that speaker (the rancher who i think is Savoy) kept saying that CO2 is a "side issue" but it is THE ISSUE. The MOC for climate change is the release of more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than the buffer systems of land, plants, ocean, and mountain erosion can compensate for. As a consequence, the concentration of those gasses accumulate in the atmosphere resulting in increased retention of heat (IR radiation) in the atmosphere and less dissipation into outer space. That increase heat retention then causes ice to melt, slows the speed of the jet streams, not to mention heat waves, greater volumes of precipitation (atmospheric rivers), and collapse of ocean food chain due to both warming and acidification of the oceans. There are solutions but they are mired in political debate (nuclear power) and costly (removing one year of CO2 emission from the atmosphere, at 100$ per 1 ton of CO2, would cost more than what the whole world spends on military spending). What is the MOC related to grazing??? I have as yet to hear it. You can't have a policy decisions until you define the MOC: that would be like building a house without knowing the principles of engineering related to the trusses. If re-wilding is considered an answer to climate change, I did the math and it would take a forest (as dense as the forests of West Virginia in the USA) that is 50% larger than all of the continental USA to compensate for 1 years worth of emissions. (And if you accept absobing 50% of emissions then 75% of the area USA area would need to be forested as dense as a West Virginia forest. However if we consider ONLY USA emissions, then a forest as dense as those in WV will need to be 50% larger than the state of WV, ignoring the 10-15 year lag between planting and sequestration, and ignoring tree failure due to diease, drought, or flood). And one can talk all one wants about cattle as preventing desertification but as CO2 rises, so will the heat and either drought and or floods, neither are good for cattle or grazing.

[@MarketStaller]

Alan in that talk said NOTHING. As a fan, you might be familiar with his other work, but it's my first time (and probably last) hearing this guy, and he's all over the place: elephants, policy, fire, science denialism lite, world war 2 and military approaches. I'd love for him to give an argument supporting his claim. In fact he never even made the claim, I'm just assuming he supports the "Animal grazing is essential for the climate" point, simply because Monbiot opposes it. Just awful, pseudscientific sophistry, it's like hearing Dawkins debate Deepak Chopra.

[@tman250]

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

[@em945]

I really like Monbiot. I do have a concern for his health particularly mental health due to veganism. That extreme childlike frustraltion is a veganism trademark. I came from a health a fitness background and had big exposure to vegan health including my own. It always ends badly in breakdown.

[@cloudripples1073]

appreciate this input. I listened to the discussion, already being familiar with Monbiot,s ideas, but hearing Savory for the first time. I felt like i could understand Monbiot's frustration, it sort of seemed like the conversation wasn't quite happening or at least wasn't really going somewhere. Could it be that Savory isn't as powerful or skilful a communicator as is Monbiot ? Savory's use of metaphor just seemed to muddy the water of his argument. That is how i felt; I just couldn't take much away from what Savory was saying, and so i thank you for your clarification on some of his talking points.

[@juliam3980]

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

[@atomicsmith]

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

[@joellinnan9168]

Why didn't gorge answer the question of: how will we do this with technology?. Thank you for your video

[@alistairnewbould8542]

Precision fermentation pĺus rewilding. Read his book Regenesis.

[@drsprof6295]

iT WORKED. I tried it in pakistan (1993-1997) . Take care of the most palatable species by rotational grazing.

[@robertrackers3276]

Excellent analysis of the debate. Savory spoke way over Monbiot’s intellectual level, and Monbiot got schooled by the crowd. Monbiot seems to ignore that observation is the step in the scientific method. I’d like to hear his explanation of the outcome of Savory’s experience with the elephants. Monbiot cares more about scientific papers than real world results, whether or not he understands the reasons.

[@someguy2135]

I am a vegan and environmental advocate. As I understand it, Savory's method can sequester CO2 up to a point that the soil in that area gets saturated and cannot be used for further grazing without further CO2 capture. Could we agree that the goal should be to phase out raising cows for food and use Savory's method until then? After that, wild ruminants would occupy that land.

[@erictorbet8104]

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

[@felipearbustopotd]

We need more farmers like Joe Salatin in each community to eat healthier and rejuvenate the land and stem our reliance on artificial fertilizers. Thank you for uploading and sharing.

[@erictorbet8104]

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

[@felipearbustopotd]

@@erictorbet8104 Excellent.

[@paulfinnan8131]

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

[@Vscustomprinting]

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

[@em945]

I am in Australia and Alan Savory's work has been a total turnaround, also some Auztralians . I was from the city, and I may not of understood the cycles and systems unless I saw it myself overtime. Our paddocks are probably in the best condition they have ever been. We have el nino on the way.

[@NicholBrummer]

Neither of the two made it clear where their hardest difference was. I think it is about how you define rewilding, and how much space and which mix of wild animals are needed. Or if part of those animals dont need to be wild.

[@Vscustomprinting]

No one cares what you think.

[@enchemin5652]

What is the link to the talk, please?

[@bedtimestory1318]

Found it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aJbOlXqNbdGIiM0

[@tanyanixon1896]

www.youtube.com/@NatureRecovery

[@EeDuncStar]

Thank you for your contribution to this complex conversation. More please.

[@alistairnewbould8542]

"Allan v Monbiot" unfortunately your use of names shows your bias. The question in the debate at 1hr 13 is the key. Also a little unfortunate that Allan was unable to clarify the difference between Savory system and traditional ranching, and how to improve governance. Nor present references, such as the 40 plus you comment on at the start of this presentation. But I agree, good to get a debate going

[@sookibeulah9331]

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

[@alistairnewbould8542]

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

[@bryanfoster2651]

Savory’s ideas are religion. Nothing more

[@johnwheeler4034]

9:15 We're facing the end of the world and you're going to talk about non-directed (harmless) swearing? Get lost

[@sookibeulah9331]

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

[@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. Thanks for the work you are doing Seth, take care.

[@DuncanPepper]

Let’s put numbers of animals and time spent per acre on this topic. I feel this is where so many damaging farms excuse their farming practices by saying their using the Savoury method.

[@HedgeWitch-st3yy]

Even in the UK you have to manage the land to require it. Take Scotland which is overpopulated with deer so new trees don't grow. Mossy Earth have done some videos on Scotland. And there's one on Findhorn. In dryer areas you probably need a combination of intensely rotated grazing (Roots so deep for US example) and food forest as a route to increasing cover and water retention in marginal land (examples in Senegal). There is no single answer that will work everywhere.

[@TheKlink]

Just found out about this!! Gonna look!!

[@dirkdil8268]

Monbiot's dismissal of people's observations of the effects of regenerative practices show why he cannot find evidence of carbon capture. He's just not looking. The accusations of fraud to the person of Savory marks him out as a hypocrite. Whether he likes it or not his disregard for the destruction of our soils by industrial practices he sides with big capital and industry, the very organisations that bank roll the scientific papers he relies on. He argued in bad faith. Thank you for your measured reaction. I can't restrain my disdain....

[@alistairnewbould8542]

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

[@alistairnewbould8542]

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

[@sookibeulah9331]

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

[@sookibeulah9331]

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

[@alistairnewbould8542]

@@sookibeulah9331 thank you for the references

[@lesleypapworth335]

Alan composed the topic. If Alan wanted to talk about policy then why didn't he have it as the topic of the debate? Also, where's the animals in your background? Alan unfortunately was as you said "not understandable at times" - lots of times! Swearing! Really!!! Get over yourself.

[@dgriffon]

I'm sorry, but what I saw was Savory evading fundamental issues and ignoring the importance of academic science on this issue. I think it is time for him to retire, he is not doing regenerative agriculture a favor with this attitude, on the contrary it is VERY harmful. I really believe that regenerative agriculture can be an extremely important part of the solution to our problems, but for it to be revelant it must embrace science, clearly and explicitly.

[@tommybreen9677]

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

[@chrisjones6736]

Thanks Seth. Really useful summary.

[@rosskellymcgarva3130]

I wish (if wishes were fishes) that Alan had the ability to communicate these complex, challenging issues in a way that could be more easily digested by the average consumer. Savory Institute and the global Hubs are such an extensive organization with diverse and well educated participants surely we can find a more concise way to communicate the science.

[@juliam3980]

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

[@em945]

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

[@Carmine207]

Thanks Seth!

[@mfr58]

There's a big problem with Monbiot, the carbon zealots and the notion that we can manipulate climate by adjusting our C02 emissions. Aside from the argument about anthropogenic C02 climate change, reducing human food needs to chemical inputs of protein, fats and carbohydrates with equivalence in any form is a complete travesty of reality. Vegan diets are not equally healthy as meat inclusive diets for everyone, certainly vegan diets based on heavily processed plant material (any more than heavily processed meat diets are healthy). This dangerous nonsense is where we get to when we obsess about one issue, namely carbon, at the expense of everything else. Even if it were true that anthropogenic C02 is causing climate change, abandoning all other requirements for health to control it, will cause the demise of humanity and the environment more readily than 2 degrees of temperature rise.....And by definition, science can never be settled, it's only science if it can be continually tested and falsified....

[@alistairnewbould8542]

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

[@mstoss5636]

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

[@Passingsoul]

Putting aside all discussion on both sides, I felt sad that George Monbiot felt he had to denigrate himself by describing Alan Savorys work as being bxxxshxx. If we can't have conversation, discussion, and debate in a respectful way without making gross remarks about the other party, it says more about the speaker than the one receiving the insult.

[@pacificatoris9307]

Allan brought a polished knife to the wrong wedding. Maybe, he was expected in the room next over.

[@joshuafinch9192]

Good to see you Seth. Monbiot is willfully blind and unfortunately has been for nearly a decade. He can't imagine that management is the deciding factor in most scenarios. The fact that he can't fathom that trees and animals can coexist or even benefit each other is such an obvious sign of his deliberate ignorance on this topic. Personally I find his "farm free" future terrifying.

[@alistairnewbould8542]

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

[@joshuafinch9192]

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

[@masteringwine]

I will endeavor to allow Alan to stop desertification in Chile

[@henrydobson9419]

Isn’t savoury directly and personally responsible for the endangerment of elephants?

[@joshuafinch9192]

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

[@tommybreen9677]

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

[@sookibeulah9331]

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

[@charliebrandt2263]

Monbiot is not in Africa. Everybody has their theories. Alan's efforts have been fruitful and that is what counts. For me, lifting communities out of poverty and restoring the soil is paramount. Sabotaging him does not help anybody. Using animals and their proper management is now proven. As for technology, Alan understands the value of land science, and their new technological tools, restoring watercourses, or creating catchments for the scarce rainfall. These are details that have to be addressed holistically and locally. Monbiot has lost his way sadly, I supported him through his career but his blunt attack on actual results is a loss of his credibility permanently for me.

[@wildpatagoniafilms16]

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

[@Vscustomprinting]

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

[@kingfillins4117]

In India Monbiot literally ate human brains as part of a story on cannibalism. He is a deeply disturbed individual desperately trying to live that down.

[@NikolaNevenov86]

watched the debate, wasn't much impressed with mr.Savory's presentation. That being said his arguments were valid, and mr.Manbiot was just looking at high carbon(the after effect), while mr.Savory was speaking about clean soil and plants as a cure of the illness rather than just trying to reduce the after effects. I saw this argument in the comments and that makes sense, that mr.Savory's solution works only in these dry areas and probably they won't be as effective in a more european like climate.

[@leelindsay5618]

I get why you care, but commentary about who said what doesn't provide new info, insight, or help further soil health. Ray Archuleta can convince more farmers with a rain simulator and fewer words. Gabe Brown showed slides where an almond orchard had a pasture beneath the trees and the farmer was using sheep to regeneratively graze the pasture while keeping bees on that same plot of land. Almond trees were healthier and required no additional inputs, plus the farmer had meat from the sheep and honey/beeswax from the bees. 3x the food on the same plot of ground and it brought about the emilination of sprays or chemical fertilizers. The example behind you speaks volumes. There will always be people who cling to unreality because the truth means "they might be wrong"....like regeneration isn't trial and error and constant change. People who fear change are generally called "conservatives". Don't spend too much time on them because they break and don't survive the storm while everyone else bends and takes it all in stride.

[@richardwaechter5426]

BOOOOOM! Soil4Climate rocks

[@kcahill2777]

The world will burn while ignorant people are waiting for peer reviewed papers.

[@mstoss5636]

I really pity Savory, he seems a nice guy with some nice results in specific environments. But now he is lost in a bigger fight with his "toolbox" containing anecdotes only. I already had a hard time trying to read his textbook, but the discussion made absolutely no sense at all. You don't enter the heart of Oxford university to discuss a clear question without understanding that specific question. Especially not, when you yourself define it. Blaming the opponent for sticking to it like most people here do, is absurd.

[@noahbrown2100]

..”but but he swore twice”….Oh dear.. that’s your issue. Alan won because…. “Umm, he’s the better person! “ 😂

[@marlan5470]

Monbiot is an intellectual gnat. No. Sorry, don't mean to insult the gnats.

[@wrighttacks]

There was no winner Savory was impossible to follow and Monbiot is not informed on the evolutionary history of life on earth and all it's subtilties. Obviously, the grasslands of the world had large ruminates on them and they were critical to that biomes development. To eliminate them would be fatal to that environment. Savory appears to want to replace all of the wild beasts with human livestock so we can support 8 billion people. Human use of livestock, excessive use, has created the deserts not helped it. If we should want it to go back to a rich grass land, reintroduce the natural ruminates after the land has rested for some time. Frankly, it was rather a stupid argument where they were not on the same page and neither one of them seems well informed. Monbiont wants to not eat animals and live of protein rich bacteria which has the same appeal as soilent green and Savory wants to take over all land for human's livestock as if the natural world does not count. When we come right down to the fact there is another million people on the earth every 4.5 days, then well know the real problem. We will have to let nature figure that one out and I suspect she will not be nice about it. I appears that neither one of them gets that issue.

[@wozzaladers3244]

The answer is NO!

[@CoryDavisPAg]

I wonder why there is no ruminant animals other than cows in those landscapes? Obviously, grazing animals were there... then ranchers exterminated them to steal their ecological niche... keeping them on the landscape perpetuates that sick relationship with nature ranching enforces on the land... too much land that was forcibly stolen from indigenous peoples in the Americas. Now our wildlife is sick... with things like Bovine Tuberculosis that cattle introduced to them. And now they are culling wildlife to protect that ridiculously unnecessary economic asset that is livestock from the diseases they introduced. Not to mention the destruction of natural apex predators that make ecosystems resilient to things like climate change. I am sorry but you are on the wrong side of this debate.

[@dountoothers]

Veganic agriculture can take place without farmed animal inputs. Savory is crackpot. Godspeed the end of animal agriculture.

[@joshuafinch9192]

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

[@erictorbet8104]

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

[@joshuafinch9192]

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

[@dountoothers]

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

[@tommybreen9677]

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

[@solartonytony5868]

... and here's the link for the (not 40 ...35) peer reviewed papers seth mentioned .... docs.google.com/document/d/1QR9Xk3aq3soidmob6nS9PMstKcllmRlgpaVDyFzRkwY

[@bluecloudsailing]

It's all nonsense.

[@alistairnewbould8542]

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