Editors:

I enjoyed your March/April issue more than any in my brief membership. Jason Mark’s opening piece, “Voodoo Agronomics,” was eye-catching and interesting, but perhaps “Voodoo Rangeland Economics” or “Voodoo Range Science” might be more appropriate—agronomics normally refers to agronomy and farmland economics/land use.

I have listened to Mr. Savory several times, the first at a faculty seminar on his exploratory range university tour in 1977 at the University of Wyoming. Then again in ’79 at Texas A&M University and again at several Society for Range Management conventions. He moved toward a holistic management philosophy in time and remained a controversial figure with his Savory Grazing System as his program and team evolved in the U.S. As a former practicing rangeland professional, I saw some very good aspects of his program, but still have my doubts on his rangeland grazing system in semiarid and arid lands. This new comment on livestock grazing as the only option left for climatologists is a mystery to me. Hoof action to break soil crusting and to speed plant regeneration has logic, and eventually (in X years?) with rains a grassland could affect local weather, or maybe even regional, in a positive manner—but as the only option to fight climate change? Hmmm. But, he has been an eye-opener and a kick in the tail to some of us Yankee range and economics folks to take a closer look at what we were espousing and doing to steward our lands. That is always good.

I was also glad to see the piece on Planet Earth and a nice large wildlife photo of the African serval cat. I have sat in the Muir Woods, an ideal cathedral, and I know that John Muir was a different type of conservationist from Aldo Leopold or John Audubon. Thank god he was able to save Yosemite and Sequoia! But, I doubt that he was saving these magnificent wild areas just for our viewing pleasure. The trees or hiking—no doubt, the fish, insects, animals, birds, and reptiles played into it and were important to him. Not just a vacant, quiet, beautiful valley or woods with no life. So, it has puzzled me, as a relatively new member, why the Club gives almost no space in the magazine to wildlife and does not have qualified wildlife biologists on state or regional staffs?

The letter by Mr. Shonle, of Mass. caught my attention as a former Wyoming resident—Wyoming began testing wind turbines in 1982, and the first commercial wind farm started in 1999. Many more have followed across the wide, windy state. Two additional wind farms are under construction, with one planned to be the largest in North America. With the huge resource of coal—some of the cleanest burning, and ample oil, all other types of power have had an uphill battle. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Wyoming. I believe geothermal could be huge in the state as well. With Denver, Salt Lake City, and smaller cities nearby, the market could be excellent, perhaps using abandoned pipelines. Solar power could also be widely available. 

Mike Mecke

Kerrville, Texas

*

Dear editors:

Please find below a letter to the editor regarding the recent article on Allan Savory in Sierra magazine.

Glen R. Behrend

The article in the March/April issue of Sierra magazine on Allan Savory and grazing management raises an interesting question: How can so many people of goodwill disagree so strongly about the methodology and results demonstrated by Savory? On one hand, M. Sanjayan, the well-respected senior scientist from Conservation International, literally jumped for joy after visiting Savory’s ranch. On the other hand, D. Briske concludes bluntly, “We find all of Mr. Savory's major claims to be unfounded." How can modern science not see what others claim to see? In his studies of Goethe and western scientific thought, Henri Bortoft described much of modern science as seeing with “one color-blind eye.” If a thing cannot be easily reported to X significant figures, it must not be. This kind of thinking unnecessarily restricts our vision and limits our choices. Sometimes this restriction allows us to extrapolate reasonable approximations of reality, which has led us to the great technological advances that we have seen. However, too often with complex natural systems, there is simply too much for the “one color-blind eye” to see to make good choices. It is here that Savory’s “holistic management” steps in. Savory and others have developed the holistic management method, which allows a group of people to manage “wholes.” It is about far more than just cows. I’ve studied Savory, seen the method in action at White Oak Pastures in Georgia, and studied the literature (for example, see Rigoberto Alfaro-Arguello et al, 2010, 2013 for systems science support). Holistic management and systems views offer great promise for thinking more broadly to manage the complex problems of our time.

Glen R. Behrend

Atlanta, Georgia

 *

As a longtime member of the Sierra Club, both in my state (MA) and my second home state (MT), and the national organization, I appreciated my March/April edition of Sierra magazine focusing on food and agriculture. This subject has been long overdue as a Sierra Club focus. However, I was saddened that there was so little attention to the suffering of pigs, cows, and other animals on large-scale factory farms. I expect more from the Sierra Club at this point in time. I was also dismayed by the lack of attention to a solution to the environmental disaster of large-scale factory farms: going vegetarian and better still, vegan. This is the obvious solution and certainly deserved some recognition as such. It is both more responsible to our environment and the kinder alternative.

Thank you for your attention to my comments.

Sincerely,

Sarah Stewart

Watertown, Massachusetts

* 

Cows are from Asia. They are used to a lot of water. That's why they destroy waterways. The American West used to be very different (beautiful) before cows. (Native) buffalos heal the landscape, but #'s must match the land size. It is why Native Americans getting buffalo back and Turner doing his part is wonderful. We need much more buffalo and much less cows.

Lydia Garvey

 *

Hello,

I am no expert on the subject, but I know that there is a lot more to the issue than what was included in Christopher Ketcham's article "The Sacred Cow." Allan Savory is not the only proponent, and it's not about hooves trampling the ground at all. Actually, that was insulting to the readers. 

There are many serious proponents of carbon sequestration with science-based assessments of the changes that occur to a landscape with grazing. We can't have the buffalo back, economically, but perhaps we can figure out something sustainable involving livestock. A choice must have been made not to include anything from the Marin Carbon Project or Paul Hawken, explaining why they have found carbon sequestration in the landscape—for which grazing is apparently required—to be the only thing that could save us from climate disaster.

As a new Sierra Club member, I am disappointed and turned off and not renewing my membership. At the least, I would expect a balanced discussion, even if it comes out against grazing (or eating meat). The article was either uninformed (and I'm reading complete drivel) or willfully misleading. 

Myrto Ashe

*

I hold no brief for Allan Savory’s unscientific views on intensive grazing being the salvation of the climate ("The Sacred Cow," March/April 2017). He strikes me as a self-deluded true believer—impervious, like all true believers, to evidence-based critiques.

Your story showed many ways in which his notions do not correspond to reality on the ground and did an excellent job of refuting his approach, specifically for very arid grasslands that evolved without major grazers.

But you did not adequately address a serious question: What about grasslands that evolved with multitudes of grazers? Before we decimated the enormous herds of bison and horses and antelopes (and mammoths, not so long ago) in the great semiarid grasslands of the world, it seems inarguable that a heavy grazer presence was consistent with a healthy environment.

For example, I have no idea what effect the 30,000,000 or so bison in the American West had on greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, but I doubt it was harmful, overall. Are cattle necessarily so different? Perhaps they are, but I would like to read a nuanced discussion of this question rather than a dismissal based on lands that evolved without a major grazer presence.

Tim Cliffe

Emmitsburg, Maryland

*

In response to the article "Seeds of the Future" regarding the search for wild relatives of our common food crops, threat of climate change is not the only reason for the importance of these wild strains. Biotech engineering may be a larger current threat. Ironically, the very seed banks meant to store and protect are funded in part by DuPont/Pioneer, Syngenta, CropLife International, and Monsanto, with the seed bank in Colorado controlled exclusively by Monsanto, according to Caitlin Shetterly's excellent book, Modified GMOs and the Threat to Our Food, Our Land, Our Future.

Angela Wotton

Houlton, Maine

 *

Editor,

I agree that Allan Savory’s view is quite overblown. In full disclosure, I own 900 acres of land grazed by cattle—a grass-fed, grass-finished operation. I don’t believe we need millions more cattle. However, cattle can be raised in responsible, environmentally beneficial ways. And there’s not just “one way.” It depends on the land. Cattle can actually be tools to foster restoration of degraded land. In particular, I’d like to point to the work of Dan Dagget (his books Gardeners of Eden and Beyond the Rangeland Conflict) to show how appropriate cattle grazing can be good for the land. The picture on page 41 in Sierra of a fence with overgrazed land on one side and unknown and not described management on the other can be contrasted with examples in Dan’s books where areas with grazing excluded for decades was gravel and brush. Where responsible grazing was used, literally on the other side of the fence, less brush and healthy grass. Indeed, in Dan’s work, there is documented significant carbon sequestration from responsible grazing, increased soil moisture, etc. Read how cattle were used to restore land on which many “conventional” restoration techniques had failed year after year. Land can be devastated by poor agricultural practices from growing corn, wheat, soybeans, walnuts, almonds, and grapes. Animals aren’t the only destroyers of land and soil. The food product is not the problem; it’s how you grow it. Eat a locally produced, grass-fed, grass-finished steak every now and again. You’ll help support someone doing good by the land and the planet.

Bill Trabucco

Nevada City, California

* 

To Sierra magazine:

I sent this letter to Christopher Ketcham after reading his excellent story in your magazine. I thought you might be interested in it.

Ellen Steinmettes

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

* 

Dear Christopher Ketcham,

I was very interested in your article about Savory and his theory, which doesn’t make sense to me at all. I know you are interested in America’s public lands, but how about America’s private lands owned by farmers? I want to tell you about my memories.

My grandfather owned a farm where the soil was becoming depleted. He had come to Wisconsin with his brothers from Schleswig-Holstein, a region between Denmark and Germany that both nations fought over. They bought land between Sparta and La Crosse, Wisconsin, and divided it into 200-acre parcels. They planted crops on the same plots year after year, with yields becoming less and less.

Then along came President Franklin Roosevelt with new ideas about soil conservation. He said he would pay them to rotate crops. A plot would be clover for a year or two. Another would be corn or alfalfa. Another would be potatoes, cash-crop peas, or pickles. Then they would be rotated. Where corn was grown one year, clover would be grown the next year.

Also, they would be paid not to plow close to ditches so they would fill with grass instead of sand and water. The land started to come back. Cows were moved all the time from one pasture to another. Manure from the cows helped return the land to fertility.

Eventually, the land was fertile again, and the ditches were not only filled with grass, but there were also fewer ditches.

Some years, plots were used for strawberries. Hay was cut and used for cow feed in winter. Oats were ground in a mill and also used as feed for the cows. Chickens used the corn, as did the ducks, geese, sometimes turkeys—they were all free range.

I remember a small orchard with crabapples near the house, and a corn crib where I ground the corn. We also had sheep that had to be moved from pasture to pasture just as the cows were so they wouldn’t eat the grass down to the ground.

We of course had horses that plowed the ground for crops and hauled the hay in wagons and helped pull it up to the hay mow in the big barn my grandpa built. All the brothers got together to build the barns and homes with big kitchens and small dining rooms. Some had a small parlor for special events, including funerals for family members. The funerals were special events from the country church, everyone bringing food, all the relatives and neighbors coming. The country school, grades one through eight, would have a monthly meeting to discuss school business, followed by a program put on by the students and a meal with the dishes people would bring along from home.

Our farm was four miles away from our town, called Sparta. It was 40 miles away from the big, big city of La Crosse, where my dad worked as an engineer for a power company.

We would judge a corn contest to keep the best seeds for next year’s planting. There were big gardens where we grew sweet corn, gooseberries, blueberries, lettuce, and all kind of vegetables. Some of the things were canned in big containers. Cabbage became sauerkraut. We sold ducks, geese, chickens, sauerkraut to people who would come from Sparta and other places.

We had a milk house where there was a big tank and a pump that would have cold water keeping milk cold in big cans. A pipe ran down to a cement tank in the barnyard where the cows would drink, except in winter when we would bring water to them in buckets. There was a large stove in the milk house with a reservoir on the end where the water was kept hot for washing milk cans and clothes.

Kettles on the stove were for dipping chickens, ducks, or geese that had been killed, so their feathers could be used to fill comforters, pillows, and feather dusters for cleaning the house. The dusters also were used for cleaning the stove pipes. Those pipes went from the wood stove in the living room to two upstairs rooms and from the kitchen to the upstairs two bedrooms. The upstairs rooms were still cold, as they had no storm windows. But we had fun drawing frost pictures on the windows.

We would cook a big chicken and dumplings for a Sunday dinner for many relatives who came out. Duck or goose was reserved for sale except for major holiday occasions like Christmas or Easter.

Noodles were all homemade with flour from the local mill. It was mixed with water and made into balls, then rolled out on the kitchen table and cut into slices that were hung on the back of kitchen chairs.

The big kitchen was the center of farm existence. Breakfast often was egg and flour pancakes (they’re called crepes now). The sweetener was sorghum or maple syrup made from sorghum stalks or maple trees.

I still talk to relatives who remember walking along the two-lane road as children on a Sunday, just talking and walking past the schoolhouse and farms along the way. We had a big front porch with a wooden table and chairs where we would play with our dolls and have pretend tea parties or coffee klatches with other relatives’ kids who came over.

Years later, my daughter and I toured Europe and visited the places where my parents were born. I loved the English countryside, with the many farms between the villages—almost like the Wisconsin countryside of the past.

Now I live in Milwaukee, retired after teaching in public schools for more than 30 years. My relatives report that the landscape where I grew up isn’t the same. Development has meant houses filling what was farmland, big-box stores and other businesses dominating many areas, and bigger and busier roads. I know that farming in many parts of Wisconsin has become factory farming, with thousands of livestock in contained areas, and all the problems that creates. It’s nothing like the farming I remember.

Change is good, but not when it’s detrimental to society, health, and the atmosphere. How long will we have clean air to breathe and nutritious food to eat?

Sincerely,

Ellen Steinmettes

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

* 

As a lifetime member, I am ashamed of the cover story "Cows Will Save the Planet ... or Not (You Choose)." I have tolerated the Sierra Club's not taking a stance on the horrors of the agriculture industry and in particular, animal ag. But to imply that there is a reasonable argument to expand the number of cows on the planet is absurd. Likewise, your favorable mention of the "gentle giants" and their token pledges to get better without mentioning how bad they are is irresponsible journalism. I can only imagine how much of the Sierra Club funding must come from these industries.

Dismayed and discouraged,

Marilyn Kriegel

*

Dear editor,

Michael Brune is right. It is time to take action on climate change and the issues like civil rights whose hard-fought progress is under threat ("Time to March," March/April 2017). Marching will focus attention on these issues and show support for them. The next step is to call, write, or visit your elected representatives. That is how the READ Act recently passed the House; it will work to bring educational opportunities to all children in our world. Studies show it is the constituents’ opinions that matter most to our representatives and senators. The problem has been people weren't speaking up. RESULTS (results.org) has been successfully using these methods and building relationships with our elected officials for 37 years. So use your feet and your voices to make sure we continue to make progress on these issues that affect all Americans.

Willie Dickerson

Snohomish, Washington

*

In your Gentle Giants sidebar, you mention Nestle as a steward of the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nestle—being one of the most unethical and irresponsible corporations in the world, from child labor to price fixing and mislabeling products—has no right to be mentioned in a publication that promotes quite the opposite. Send a reporter to McCloud, California, and poll the locals about Nestle commandeering the entire town water supply. Somewhat of a miracle that the grassroots effort to stop the takeover was successful, after a six-year battle. In future editions, please take the time to research the corporations you decide to fete. Other than owning candy brands (nothing wrong with filling the stomachs of the youth of the world with high fructose corn syrup, right?), their inroads into many other foodstuffs, animal food, and even clothing can only devastate the environment more while ensuring the extra profit. Thank you.

Daniel Wing

Fort Collins, Colorado

* 

I understand that the upcoming issue of the Sierra Club magazine includes an article titled “Hog Hell” about the North Carolina hog industry. I work with the N.C. Pork Council and wanted to share our disappointment that you didn’t contact us to get our perspective on the state’s hog industry and related environmental issues. 

I assume that this article has already gone to print, but please know that we are always willing to talk about the N.C. pork industry and the steps that hog farmers take to protect the environment. 

Robert Brown

*

I expect the Sierra Club (and Sierra magazine) to promote the use of critical thinking and science to inform our decisions. "The Sacred Cow" article and the related editorial "Voodoo Agronomics" in the March/April Sierra did not live up to that expectation. You use the single, highly controversial "straw man" figure, Allan Savory, as if he represented the whole or best of current rangelands management science. You focus on the weakness of his extreme and unsupported claims and then use that as reason to confirm our environmentalist bias against all beef as being environmentally harmful. While the article did include a hidden acknowledgement that well-managed grazing can increase soil carbon content, this important tidbit was buried in the avalanche of an unqualified "all beef is bad for the earth" message. Completely ignored is the fact that using land for cattle grazing helps provide economic viability to open space and habitat for many other species that would otherwise be threatened by much more harmful land uses. Rather than just tearing down a non-scientist's controversial position, your readers deserve to see what the science of rangelands management says and in what situations cattle grazing can be environmentally neutral or beneficial.

Mark Balcom

Prather, California

*

Christopher Ketcham’s recent polemic on Allan Savory leaves the impression that his theories of holistic grazing management have been resoundingly repudiated.

To the contrary, although Savory’s controversial approach has been refuted by some reputable scientific studies, other credible investigations validate holistic management. A few minutes of online searching will produce numerous citations to both peer-reviewed and journalistic materials. 

By presenting only one side of this ongoing debate, the Sierra article misleads our members and squanders an opportunity to launch a critical conversation on the ways improved agricultural practices can make a significant contribution to carbon sequestration.

Victoria Brandon

Lower Lake, California

*

The Sierra Club supports agricultural practices that ensure the ecological health of habitat. Ketcham's article does not argue against agriculture. However, he notes that Savory's belief-based methods in most cases fail to make lands meet the ecological goals that the Club policy supports. Extensive scientific studies validate this view.

Savory dismisses science by claiming that his method can only be assessed by those that believe in holistic range management. Contrary to what Savory says, independent scientists can determine the health of rangelands. Long-term rest and light grazing, especially in riparian areas, are contrary to Savory’s methods yet central to ecosystem health.

Sierra Club grazing team

* 

Congratulations on the informative and thought-provoking March/April 2017 issue of Sierra magazine! “Seeds of the Future” reminds us of the precarious nature of the genetic resilience in our food crops. “Poi Power” importantly links political independence and our sources of food. “Hog Hell,” “The Sacred Cow,” and “Voodoo Agronomics” offer powerful reasons to consider reducing our intake of meat. The photo “Hungry Planet” alerts us to the fact that our growing human numbers are radically reshaping the earth. 

The issue offers good news about some of our “Gentle Giants.” One learns of the environmental efforts of companies such as Nestle and General Mills, not often thought of as “climate conscious.” 

Keep up the good work! Down with platitudes; up with action!

Evan Jones

Sacramento, California

*

Dear sirs:

Savory has undoubtedly overstated his case for the benefits of cattle on soil and carbon sequestration, and his management strategies have not yet been satisfactorily supported by scientific studies. But your article just about equally overstated the case against him.

First, although molecule-for-molecule methane has a much greater greenhouse effect than CO2, the net overall effect is about half that of CO2, because there is so much less methane in the atmosphere. So to say that methane is “25 times more heat-trapping than CO2” is simply not true. Furthermore, water vapor, because it also is much more potent molecule-for-molecule than CO2, and there’s far more of it in the atmosphere than methane or CO2, accounts for about 95 percent of the global greenhouse effect. Thus, methane from cattle is a minor factor overall.

Second, although too many cattle combined with too little water can clearly result in soil degradation, even large amounts of hoof action, along with sufficient rainfall, can be part of a sustainable ecosystem, a possibility your article largely discounted. Think of the hundreds of millions of bison that once inhabited vast areas of North America, including the Great Plains, for thousands of years, without any evident deleterious effect.

Third, contrary to your statement, fungi and bacteria in the soil do not “gobble up” atmospheric CO2. Rather, they first take in fixed carbon from plants and animals, then generate atmospheric CO2 through respiration. Any system—including Savory’s when managed properly—that increases the amount of fixed carbon in depleted soil results in a net decrease of atmospheric CO2.

Fourth, you criticized Savory’s system for removing animals from the land when they go to slaughter because of the resultant lack of a “closed” nutrient loop. Yet that closure is no less true for Savory’s system than any other agricultural practice that harvests animals or crops without replacing the very small proportion (much less than 1 percent) of nutrients that come directly from the soil itself. And, although adding synthetic fertilizers such as nitrogen and phosphorus can increase soil carbon short term, over time it degrades the soil; it’s not a long-term sustainable practice.

So yes, too many cattle with too little water over a too-short time span can ruin the soil. But don’t completely dismiss Savory’s system out of hand just because it hasn’t been thoroughly documented. Yet.

David Fisher, PhD

Department of Sustainable Living

Mahararishi University of Management

Fairfield, Iowa

* 

I was at first excited to see on the cover of the March/April magazine, “Cows Will Save the Planet…or Not (You Choose).” But after reading both the article and the editorial titled “Voodoo Agronomics,” I was dismayed. I know Allan Savory is a controversial figure (demonstrating this seemed to be the point of the article), but why no attempt to investigate other sources that have found that use of multicell grazing is very successful in managing rangeland and restoring diverse habitat? To see three examples where this method of grazing has shown clear success, I recommend watching an online video called “Carbon Cowboys.”

Additionally, visit the website of the Quivira Coalition, www.quiviracoalition.org, which "operates on the principle that the natural processes that sustain wildlife habitat, biological diversity, and functioning watersheds are the same processes that make land productive for livestock.” Quivira is based in Montana and is made up of ranchers, conservationists, environmentalists, and scientists from various land-use agencies. 

Here in my home state of Massachusetts, Ridge Shinn in Hardwick has been working for over a decade to promote 100-percent-grass-fed beef with rotational grazing (a.k.a., multicell grazing) and has demonstrated greatly improved soil health and water retention on lands used this way. His website provides a wealth of support for this practice. His work has been cited in the Smithsonian, Atlantic Monthly, NY Times, and Time Magazine.

An additional website with a wealth of information on this and other means of restoring ecosystems is that of Biodiversity for a Livable Climate: www.bio4climate. The website includes many links to videos and photos showing the improvement of land through multicell grazing.

Yes, beef consumption must be greatly reduced and be only 100 percent grass-fed: no CAFOs! But it does not have to be eliminated. Printing the editorial and article with no full investigation does a disservice to us as readers and to those who are on the forefront of seeing how integration of cattle grazing done wisely does much to restore the ecosystems on which we all depend. 

Linda Clark

Arlington, Massachusetts

*

Greetings!

I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed the article "Poi Power" (March/April). Although I've never visited Hawaii, I have heard about poi. Little did I realize just how much of an important staple it is to the True Hawaiian diet. Are there plans to incorporate more taro farmers to give poi a much-needed return to the state? Will environmental groups take a part in such action? 

Kimberly Richardson

Memphis, Tennessee

*

Hi Jason, 

The March/April 2017 Sierra magazine cover story is stirring debate. Here is food for thought: Meat-Free Monday. Rest assured, it doesn't dictate what to eat. Rather, it educates how the consumption of factory-raised animals contributes to climate change, water pollution, water depletion, rainforest depletion, and even honeybee demise.

We invite Sierra Club chapters, groups, and members to join. For more info, please visit the Grassroots Network site at https://content.sierraclub.org/grassrootsnetwork/teams/meat-free-monday-campaign

Laurel Hopwood

Ohio Sierra Club Agriculture Chair

Cleveland, Ohio

*

You describe Allan Savory's military experience in Rhodesia as "fighting communist guerrillas in the veld." Wouldn't it have been more to the point to say that he fought a losing battle to preserve minority white rule against the majority African nationalists?

Matthew Frisch

Arkville, New York

*

Dear editor,

Christopher Ketcham’s article, “The Sacred Cow,” was a lost opportunity. Ironically, it was funded by the Club’s Fair Table campaign, for it was merely another snarky treatment of one of the most compelling and important ideas in the world of ecology today and anything but fair. Mr. Ketcham came to his subject “prepared with literature critical” of Savory’s ideas. That would be expected of a good journalist. The problem is that his bias, which accompanied and moved him to select the literature, did not allow him to meaningfully engage with Mr. Savory’s ideas. He could not hear what Mr. Savory was saying. This problem is inherent in communications between paradigms: His “opponents,” through their prism of reductionist science, can “see” only a distortion of Savory’s ideas. This plagues Mr. Ketcham, and he is left dismissing evidence from around the world, what Savory indeed could show him, because it could not easily be reduced to the mathematical data that would be easy for him to see. This problem notwithstanding, there is abundant evidence that Savory’s insights into the management of living systems are helping land managers produce enhanced ecosystem function around the world.

It is problematic that so much of this evidence is anecdotal, but that does not mean that the improvements are not real. Perhaps it is the failure not of Savory or of his ideas or of those of us employing them to good effect. Perhaps it is the failure of science to find experimental models of complexity that do not distort the object of their study. This is precisely why the research of Briske et al, cited confidently by Ketcham, is of no value: His experiments in no way resemble what could be called holistic management of land and animals. In fact, and for this reason, his studies are themselves controversial.

 On the ranches we manage, the improvement in land function is not only manifest in hundreds of photos but also in measured increases in soil organic matter occurring in the last four years and in spite of severe drought (http://soilcarboncoalition.org/changemap.htm).

Readers of Sierra should continue to be heartened by the implications of Savory’s work and should not be fooled by the temptation evident in the article by Ketcham and the editorial by Jason Mark to disdain what you cannot yet understand. Neither of these well-intentioned writers went “deep into Savory’s ideas,” and therefore both came away with only distorted shadows of what Mr. Savory’s ideas really are.

With respect,

Joseph O. Morris

San Juan Bautista, California

*

Dear editors,

In her review of The Nature Fix (March/April 2017), Eliana Osborn writes that shinryoku is "the Japanese term for using all five senses during an immersive nature experience." There may be a Japanese term for this sublime experience (though I don't know of one), but shinryoku isn't it. Depending on the kanji with which it's written, shinryoku means "fresh green foliage" or "deep green." 

Tony Chambers

Professor Emeritus of Japanese, Arizona State University

San Diego, California

* 

Dear Sierra Club,

It always disappoints me to see how fuzzy the Club is willing to be in its references to global warming. The Ketcham article is a case in point. He concurs with a framing of the problem that tries to figure out how much the process of sequestration can contribute to what is said to be the task of curbing CO2 emissions. 

That’s not really the proper framing. 

And it also quotes an inaccurate number for annual CO2 emissions, suggesting that it’s 50 billion tonnes or so, when UN figures generally put annual CO2 emissions at 35 billion tonnes.

Global warming has been misframed as an emissions problem from the very outset, and that error rolls right along today, after 40-plus years, because hardly anyone involved with the issue has recognized what an appalling piece of sloppy thinking occurred when the emissions label was first chosen.

Global warming isn’t caused by annual emissions—the implication that the emissions rhetoric conveys—it is caused by growth in the total CO2 overload. 

And it cannot be halted by strategies that emphasize “emission reduction.” It can only be halted by a complete technology change-out. Everything that runs on fossil fuels has to be retired. And for that to happen, all technologies that require fossil fuels have to be replaced with alternatives that don’t require fossil fuels. It’s really pretty simple. Once we have fresh technologies, and no one needs fossil fuels, no one will buy fossil fuels, no one will burn fossil fuels, and CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption will drop to zero. 

If you’re going to invest in articles that are centrally related to global warming, you really ought to set minimum standards of accuracy for how those articles frame the challenge. In the Ketcham article, you fell a long way short of meeting those minimum standards. 

And the sequestration problem? If atmospheric CO2 is ever to be restored to 280 ppm, not only will we have to phase out all the technologies that burn fossil fuels, we will also have to extract at least a quadrillion pounds of carbon from the atmosphere (and from oceanic CO2) and put it somewhere. If biosequestration is used, that will represent about two pounds of carbon per square foot on all the world’s croplands and pasturelands. (1 PPM = 7.77 gigatonnes of CO2.)

This is too important an issue for it to be regularly turned to mush by careless thinking and careless writing. Please please please. Stop frittering away precious time. Learn to get the issue right, really right, and stop letting your guard down.

Sincerely,

Steven Howard Johnson

Author: Getting America Unstuck

*

Dear Mr. Ketcham,

I have just finished reading your article in the latest Sierra magazine in which you make Allan Savory out to be a dangerous nutcase intent on trashing the planet. That may be a slight exaggeration, but you did portray him as someone doing more harm than good. 

Why? 

My nasty, cynical mind leaps to the conclusion that you were paid to write the article by conventional ranchers who feel threatened by Savory’s ideas. Probably also an exaggeration, but I fail to see why you cannot give credit where credit is due. The anecdotal evidence that you dismiss is real: There are hundreds of examples of previously devastated grasslands that have regenerated using holistic management, including grazing. I have to say, at this point, that I am very skeptical about the role of science in agriculture and ecology. Nature is so very complex that you cannot run “scientific” tests on one small part and then try to apply that information to the whole. One of your biggest criticisms of holistic management is that it cannot be replicated, making it unscientific, and therefore utterly worthless.

Yes, you had a lengthy interview with Savory, but you do not seem to have listened to him. He says, repeatedly, that his management systems cannot be replicated—if they could be, they would not be holistic. In case you failed to look it up, holistic means viewing a system as a whole and not just as the sum of its individual parts. As you will never find two ranches that are made up of the same parts—soil, climate, terrain, rainfall, indigenous plants, and on and on—so you will never find one solution that fits them both, let alone all ranches. The Savory Institute teaches management. And it is not easy, by-the-book management, which is probably why so many have tried it and failed.

I could go on all day (and in fact I am working on a book about how integrated farming can indeed save the planet), but I will just make one last point. Allan Savory has never claimed that he can make deserts bloom. He does not advocate running more cattle on marginal lands. He has presented a very workable way to regenerate GRASSLANDS by means of managed grazing.

Because I cannot find email addresses for Michael Brune or Jason Mark, I am asking you to forward this to them. 

Elizabeth Whitehouse

*

"What's the Beef?" (March/April) states that we can achieve the equivalent of a 2.5 percent cut in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions just from eating pasture-raised rather than industrial-confinement cattle. Let's not pretend we could offset all our energy emissions just from eating better. We need to do it all; we know that. But, we are what we eat. So let's eat with conscience and cut that 2.5 percent, too, preferring pasture-raised and local beef as a condiment. 

Donna Buell

Spirit Lake, Iowa

* 

Kudos to the staff of the Sierra magazine for its March/April 2017 issue, and for two reasons. First, its longer articles allow more thorough presentation of their subjects. Too many pieces in Sierra have recently been two pages or less in length and lacked depth. Second, thanks for an issue that we in the environmental community do not often think much about—agriculture. 

Particularly good was the article "The Sacred Cow," presenting the theory of Allan Savory. As a resident of an area that was denuded of its grasslands by the overgrazing of cattle, I was particularly interested in it. Allan Savory's theory is provocative but fails two tests that are discernible to a person with only passing knowledge of the science of range management. Savory puts forth notions that are simultaneously counterintuitive and antiempirical. They not only make no sense, but Savory seems to deny or ignore real, scientific observations of his theory put to practice.

Thanks again for the March/April issue. Please consider publishing more issues that similarly inform environmentalists about crucial issues about which we know too little. 

Kenneth War

Las Cruces, New Mexico

* 

What is Sierra thinking?

Savory isn't a scientist. What he says doesn't "add up." Why is Sierra screaming in a bold cover "Cows Will Save the Planet"? Maybe Sierra thinks that outrage will sell magazines? Get more people to actually read your articles? 

Time for Sierra to "do the (ecological) math" before you put out a headline that is totally contrary to reality.

As our bully in chief says, so sad! 

Kate Roney Faulkner

*

Dear Jason Mark,

I read your "Voodoo Agronomics," which I find slightly pathetic. I became a vegetarian after I was 60 (I am now 81) and only regret I did not do so sooner!

There is not enough meat to feed everyone, and you have already eaten your share.

Frank N. Egerton

 *

Hello.

I appreciate that the main thrust of Christopher Ketcham's fascinating article "The Sacred Cow" was to debunk Allan Savory's unscientific and unproven claims about putting more cows onto eroded landscapes. Mission accomplished. However, I was stunned that Ketcham described Savory as "a soldier." ("Born in Zimbabwe to a family of British colonials, he commanded an elite government unit during the country's long, brutal civil war.") Actually, he was born in Southern Rhodesia, a British colony in which 1 percent of the people—those white "British colonials"—used brutal military force in order to steal the land, exploit the resources, and oppress the 99 percent of humans who were black. This was no "civil war" that Savory fought in. Rather, he was part of a racist, fascist colonial regime that colluded with the white minority apartheid regime in neighboring South Africa. Savory wasn't "fighting communist guerrillas." Instead, he was a willing accomplice of a heavily armed, racist police state trying to stem the tide of African liberation. Ketcham and Sierra should do better. 

Peter Cole

Macomb, Illinois

* 

Christopher Ketcham ("The Sacred Cow") documents well the multiple damages to range lands caused from cattle grazing. The article's content and title relate to another such enlightening publication, the 1983 book Sacred Cows at the Public Trough by Oregon range specialists Denzel and Nancy Ferguson. 

However, large wording on the March/April cover could mislead some who don't read the contained article into assuming that somehow "Cows Will Save the Planet." Too, the unsavory Allan Savory sounds like he deserves less, rather than additional, recognition. 

Ace Gridley

Camas, Washington 

*

Dear reader,

Please pass my letter along to the most appropriate contact person you can think of in order to get this letter some consideration. I would have sent it directly to Michael Brune myself, but I could not locate his contact information. 

Sincerely,

Bernadette Dollard

*

Dear Michael Brune,

I am waiting to hear more about your grassroots mobilizing efforts. Can Sierra Club be the catalyst that has the right message to coordinate with as many large groups as possible? Can you work to consolidate efforts with a group like the Woman's March organizers, for example? I marched Saturday with them, but I don't have time to do that very often.

I also can't afford to send Sierra Club any money beyond membership, and I'm getting a little jaded about the increasing requests for money. Those of us afraid of Trump want to take to the streets but not in splintered, energy-sapping ways. We want to make bigger statements than the Woman's March did yesterday. Planet health = human health, and all thinking people have a stake in it. How about contacting the Nurses Union, too? Earth Day is coming up. Can you reach out beyond just the Sierra Club membership?    

Somebody needs to unite all us like-minded people to make our numbers known in a very public way.

We need to reject the lies that marginalize us.

Respectfully,

Bernadette Dollard

*

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to complain about an article that you recently published written by Christopher Ketchum.

The article was biased and was presented with significant malice, it seemed, to the ideas and person of Allan Savory. The author complained that Savory was too vague in his answers and wouldn't provide specific proof or scientific detail about the results of his proposed livestock-management program. He then proceeds to interview several skeptics of Savory's ideas without doing any background on the focus of their research, where their research dollars come from, or their level of familiarity with the entire concept of holistic management. If the author could not mine the information he needed to support Savory's ideas from the man himself, why not speak with several of the many successful dry-land practitioners? If you want to talk about the vision behind Apple products in the 80s, you talk to Steve Jobs. If you want to know the gritty details of what is going on inside the Apple products in the 80s, you talk to Steve Wozniak. Gabe Brown, Ray Archuleta, Ian Mitchell-Innes, and Greg Judy are just a few of the people who have much experience with what Savory is talking about. They could also provide in-depth details about the results that they've experienced. Why not speak with someone like that to provide the details you seek?

At best, this seems like lazy, sloppy journalism. At worst, it seems like a hit piece with ulterior motives to fulfill.

My family and friends have been longtime donors and supporters of the Sierra Club. I can't remember a time when Club calendars weren't given out at Christmas as presents. That may all come to an end if I don't receive a satisfactory response to my concern over this article. It was reckless to publish it without demanding that the author dig a little deeper. I don't believe that a single current practitioner was even interviewed.

If this is what the Sierra Club chooses to represent, I will no longer support the Sierra Club, and I will make sure my friends and family act similarly.

Mark Hostetler 

* 

Dear editor,

Thank you for the March cover story on the Savoy method. I really liked how the author takes on three of the great debates in American government today regarding science, markets, and equity. The claims that managed grazing works, just because I say so, without any data, was convincing! The value of science is the ability to evaluate and remeasure the outcomes. Grazing itself is not a monolithic term. Evolution has allowed different ungulates to capture food niches on the prairie. Cattle as an imported species have no scruples to follow the natural management scheme. The result has been the disappearance of much of California’s original grasslands and their species.

The second great debate was about markets versus government. Who insures social outcomes better, and how should they be regulated? Managers do not act in the interests of stakeholders (including shareholders) and there’s little anyone can do about it. Enron and GM are examples where large returns lead to deregulation pressures, which in turn lead to astronomic returns until the corporations crash and the taxpayers are left with the bads and the environmental consequences are never addressed. Managers on the prairie have only one goal—to have a return on their cattle investment. Will they really watch out for other public interests like the climate or riparian habitat? If so why hasn’t this occurred in the coal, agriculture, or gasoline industry?

And finally equity—how do we get equitable distributions of opportunity and returns? The distributive consequences of market failures are never addressed. We never ask who gains and who loses when private returns and social returns are not well aligned. Large cattle owners did pretty well hiding E. coli outbreaks and mad cow disease, making it illegal in states like Texas to even talk about it. Meanwhile small grazers like the Navajo have trouble accessing water and grazing lands. Can anyone expect the climate to come out ahead after large ranchers have access to public lands? The debates over science, markets, and equity show that there is no free lunch principle. Cattle cannot take muscle and energy out of grassland to enrich the pockets of large ranchers and expect the land to save future generations from climate change. There are other species like the deer and pronghorn that have a claim to the prairie. This is an old debate. It’s why Robin Hood shot the sheriff. Let’s bring back small stakeholders like hunters and hunter-gathers who were able to live off the prairie.

Regards,

Gladwyn d’Souza

Belmont, California

*

Good to see you removing wind from Allan Savory's sails, as he and I had a court case back in 1975 in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) when I was research officer (I/C) in Wankie (now Hwange) National Park and he tried to secure classified government scientific data from me to use against the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management.

John Herbert

*

To the editor,

I am a life member of and a monthly donor to the Sierra Club. I am proud to be a member of this organization. However, I have a reflection on your recent Sierra issue. In your article “Catering to the Planet,” you included descriptions of what several very large, multinational corporations are doing to help the planet and its climate under the heading “Gentle Giants.” Among others, you cited Nestle and its actions in regard to palm oil production. While I am happy that Nestle is taking such actions, you ignore the fact that Nestle (among others) is grossly harming the environment—not to mention its human inhabitants—by greedily and aggressively draining public water supplies in order to produce bottled water (and its mountains of plastic waste) in what I believe is a wide-scale attempt on the part of the bottled-water industry to privatize the world’s water resources for ever larger corporate profits. Access to clean, safe, and affordable water is a human right, not a privilege, something that Nestle seems to contest.

Furthermore, according to Green America’s most recent cocoa scorecard, although Nestle is not rated as low as some of its large competitors are, it still only rates a C+. I would guess that there are many other ways in which Nestle does not deserve the title “Gentle Giant.” In my mind, these gigantic corporations give with one hand and then take with the other, often taking twice as much from the rest of us as they have given, especially in the developing world. Furthermore, when these corporations say they are going to do something good and noble, they do not always keep their promises. It is fair to cite the beneficial plans and actions of these corporations, but I take issue with labeling them as “gentle” and not pointing out “with one hand they giveth and with the other taketh away.” Finally, maybe one issue that the Sierra Club could advocate for—along the lines of the banning of bottled water in national parks—would be to campaign for its members and Americans in general to acknowledge the safety and quality of the majority of American municipal water supplies by not buying bottled water.

Thanks for your work, and thanks for your attention.

Karin Hemmingsen

Attleboro, Massachusetts

*

Regarding your story "Hog Hell" in the March/April magazine, perhaps Duplin County is ripe for a new industry in town: ecotourism. Some local entrepreneur could arrange tours of the area—keep off private land, but take people who are interested in the environment, or in cruelty to animals, or in social justice, on tours to look at the devastation being done to waters, neighbors, and the air. Perhaps even helicopter rides to look down upon the county's lagoons.

Helen Etters

Winston-Salem, North Carolina

*

Hello folks,

I really appreciated the article "The Sacred Cow" in the March/April issue of Sierra. I have long been of the opinion that Allan Savory's methods did not add up, and it is a relief to see that in fact his methods will not stand up to scientific scrutiny or real-world situations. To me, the whole "cow rage" brought about by the popularity of Savory's ideas is just a way some people are justifying meat production being OK for the planet (which all evidence is contrary to). If humans cannot curb their carnal desire to eat high on the food chain, the planet will suffer increasingly.

Joel Dufour & Chris Schimmoeller

Frankfort, Kentucky

*

When it comes to California’s marijuana industry and the environment, the overlooked issue is location. When the first step in establishing a marijuana grow is to chop down a swath of forest, you are fragmenting and degrading habitat, no matter what your subsequent practices are or whether you receive a permit. There is no mitigation for fragmentation. The forested mountains of Humboldt County are an ecologically inappropriate location for a major agricultural industry. It is time to move the industry out of habitat. Marijuana should be grown in previously developed areas that have lower wildlife values. We need the California legislature to permit enough large cultivation sites, in ecologically appropriate areas, to put the harmful habitat grows out of business. To learn more about the “green rush” go to www.habitatforever.wordpress.com.

Amy Gustin

Ettersburg, California

*

Re: "The Sacred Cow"

As a scientist and a homesteader, I want to say how disappointed I am with Sierra’s “The Sacred Cow” cover article. Apparently, Christopher Ketcham presented his journalistic impression of Allan Savory’s work after listening to a single TED talk, interviewing Savory, and making a few phone calls. Without knowledge of soils, without farm experience, and without reading Savory’s book, he distorts concepts of mob grazing, holistic management, and carbon sequestering. Jason Mark’s endorsement of this faulty research was doubly disappointing.

Ketcham did give us one paragraph on the second page explaining rotational mob grazing. But after this, he repeatedly gives examples of grazing as being bad for the land. Yes—agreed! But “grazing” is not the same as rotational mob grazing. The latter is “Savory’s method,” which imitates nature to support the living soil, vegetation, and all species. As Dr. Christine Jones reminds us in a March 2015 Acres U.S.A. interview, there were more ruminants on the land 200 years ago than today—and the land thrived. Mob grazing is an attempt to return to the way nature intended the land to be used.

The fact that nature is complex, interdependent, and constantly changing is a reality that Ketcham doesn’t seem to grasp. Instead, he sounds exasperated that Savory uses the term “holistic.” Unless journalists are willing to put on muck boots for a few seasons and work with nature, I don’t believe they can understand the complexity of nature. Nature’s ways are very, well…holistic!

This interactive-complexity is what makes nature impossible to replicate in the laboratory. It becomes almost laughable that Ketcham doubts Savory’s work because it can’t be “replicated” or that it is “inconsistent.” Well, welcome to the reality of working with nature! Not only do we farmers find each year different from the former, but also each season and each day varies. And I admit, that makes our attempt at “rotational mob grazing” less perfect than nature’s management with predators, large number of ruminants, and open land. But at least these efforts restore, rather than destroy, the soil and multispecies plants.

This article doubts the wisdom of nature, and I find that unwise. A cow doesn’t have to die to provide nourishment to the soil’s microbes; dung and urine provide important fertilizers, microbes, and moisture. Nature provides millions of “methanotrophs” to gobble up the methane produced by ruminants and provides for increased carbon sequestering when plants are grazed.

It’s too easy for us humans who want fast results to dismiss nature’s methods. Land that was previously grazed “traditionally” may have lost one to two feet of topsoil; it will take time to bring this soil back to life. And readers do understand that plants need water and that mob grazing can’t be successful in deserts!

I am not encouraging anyone to eat meat. In fact, with so many people on the planet, I don’t even encourage anyone to buy grocery-store fruits or vegetables. Mono-cropping our food has destroyed habitat for millions of creatures. What I do encourage is a bit of research. Topics such as “soil-food web” and “soil carbon sequestration” may sound exotic but are as basic as the planet we call home. I believe learning more about how nature functions will show why mimicking nature with rotational mob grazing works well to heal the land.

Mary Lou Shaw, M.D.

Milk and Honey Farm

*

Dear Sierra editor,

I have been around cattle, both dairy and beef, and I believe Mr. Savory's ideas about adding more cattle to an environ to improve it is just not what Mother Nature needs based foremost on the water needs of cattle. The average lactating cow with calf at side on a hot summer day will drink about 15 to 18 gallons of water per day. Furthermore, she will not take her calf more than a 40-minute walk from a reliable water source that she has programmed into her home-range-territory map. A mama cow has the innate ability to know that she and her calf can live without grass but not without water.

So, you can drive them anywhere you want, but when mama cow knows that the water source is too far away, mama cow does a U-turn. Free-range cattle travel in circles around a water source. So what is Savory's answer to this question: How do cattle improve a water-restricted environ? 90 percent of USA ag land is now water restricted as the result of ag-related drain on local aquifers. Drought cycles currently plague 70 percent of USA ag lands. Forget about reversing climate change by increasing grazing capacity on lands. A thirsty cow kicks up a lot of dust. Like millions of tons of it during the Dust Bowl.

Last year, 30 million head of cattle were slaughtered for meat in the USA. The national beef council states the average cow was 21 months of age at slaughter. NOT! 45 percent of cattle slaughtered for beef consumption in the USA are dairy cows, retired at age four. Four years of age for maladies related to forced milk production via rBST or rBGH. Average dairy cows drink twice as much as lactating beef breed cows.

Jan Cubbage

*

I find the tale of Allan Savory to be a fascinating one, and a tale that is, in some respects, cautionary. As much as this article revealed him to be a man of self-taught, self-confidant knowledge, it also showed him to be a man of formidable salesmanship skills. He seemed quite capable of convincing people from many walks of life that his methodology of restoring land by the very actions that destroy it, heavy cattle grazing, was not only right but urgently necessary. And it could reverse global warming, too.

The old axiom “If it sounds too good to be true…” began ringing quite loudly as I read this article. Yet by promoting such action, he conceivably helped the cattle industry increase its bottom line, and perhaps his own.

Ultimately, his lack of scientifically verifiable evidence of the benefits of his “holistic grazing” theory leads me to conclude that Mr. Savory, unlike his sir name implies, was peddling an unsavory brand of self-promoted science, one which helped no one more perhaps than himself.

Ron Thuemler

Tampa, Florida

*

I read with interest, and personal concern, the “What’s the Beef” insert in the article “The Sacred Cow." As someone who tries to be conscious of my carbon footprint, and not having eaten beef for the past 45 years as part of that commitment, I was astounded to see the figures listing lamb having an emissions rating a third greater than beef’s rating. I seldom eat lamb, because it is so expensive, but I would appreciate learning more as to why it is rated as having such an adverse emissions impact. Would hate to give it up, but given those figures, I might have to do so. Thank you, in advance, for potentially providing me with an additional explanation for this significant difference.

James Hendrix

Cashiers, North Carolina

*

Dear Jason Mark,

Errors in the excellent Sierra magazine erode credibility, which is unfortunate. In his interesting report, "Poi Power," Jeremy Miller states "sugarcane…helped draw moisture from the air." I know of no scientific support for this statement. Plants can reduce moisture loss from dry soils, but they do not capture water vapor from the air.

Timothy Williams

Sugar Hill, New Hampshire

*

Dear Editor,

Christopher Ketcham's piece entitled "The Sacred Cow" in the March/April issue was very disappointing. Rather than being a piece of thoughtful, objective journalism, it becomes clear the author wrote the article with a predetermined, biased conclusion. Instead of looking for the facts and then assembling them in an objective way, Mr. Ketchum appears only to be interested confronting Mr. Savory and discrediting holistic management. I had no opinion about Mr. Savory or holistic management before reading the article; however, it seems to me that this sort of journalism is more at home on Fox News than in a Sierra Club publication.

Sincerely,

Tucker Torok

Bozeman, Montana

*

The article by Jason Mark "Seeds of the Future" in the March/April issue of Sierra took me back to 1967, when my parents uprooted the family from the Midwest and moved to East Africa. My father, an old-school PhD agronomist employed by USAID, practiced the tested methodologies of Hummer and her colleagues: crossbreeding sorghum and collecting samples of wild plants. I had worked with him in his research fields in Nebraska, hand-bagging male and female heads, labeling, recording, harvesting, and running regression analyses on a giant calculator. He eventually moved on to computers, but the collection of data was still old-fashioned. Unfortunately, the current president and his colleagues in D.C. seem determined to destroy basic science of all types out of willful ignorance and a myopic and inexplicable desire to destroy the earth. My father, no longer with us, would be appalled, but at least I can carry on his work by funding the Sierra Club.

Lon L. Peters

Pasadena, California

*

It worries me that the "Time to March" article by Michael Brune in the Sierra March/April issue uses emotional rhetoric in the first paragraph, saying that people were "united in the same righteous purpose." Are we to believe that these "righteous" people are morally superior to those who may disagree with them? This type of thinking closes the door to any logical dialogue that might lead to solutions on any issues. Also, it's a bad idea to lump all the different issues outside of protecting the environment (which the majority of Americans probably do support) with the complex issues of illegal immigrants—Muslims who are terrorists, racism, etc.—into the same march.

I propose a positive, more productive march to make citizens of this country aware that the development of magnetic motors would produce free energy for the world and stop our pollution. The fossil fuel industry attacks all the inventors working on these motors, ties up the patents, and spreads propaganda to convince the public that they won’t work. We need a grassroots movement just to get the word out and support the research.

Gloria Tiemann

Sequim, Washington

*

Editor,

If the editor of Sierra wants readers to take sides in the long-standing argument over the impact of cattle grazing, he should give them better information than is presented in “The Sacred Cow.” Allan Savory’s proposal to use high-volume grazing to sequester carbon is highly controversial but not ridiculous, despite Ketcham’s treatment of it. Savory’s quoted comment that science and HRM are incompatible is peculiar and misleading; using science to evaluate HRM is difficult but not impossible. One difficulty is that generalizing findings requires a very large number of study plots because the landscapes are large and vary in precipitation, soil type, and quality and other factors that can often override grazing impacts. Also, precise replication of any treatment/method is almost impossible outside the physical sciences because implementers and situational constraints are seldom constant. In addition, HRM is an unusually complex method to replicate, as Ketcham recognizes. Nevertheless scientific methods have been used often to provide some clarification. Unfortunately, the qualifications made by researchers have been largely ignored, as both sides in the argument pick and choose their studies. It would be possible to move past this if cooperation were possible, but it does not seem to be the right time for this. At the very least, readers can read the other side of the argument at Bit.ly/hmi-soil.

Norm Wallen

Flagstaff, Arizona

*

Dear editor,

We are compelled to comment on the article written by Christopher Ketcham entitled, “Allan Savory’s Holistic Management Theory Falls Short on Science. ” A key deficiency in Ketcham’s article was the approach used to address the science of grazing impact on ecosystem services. In fact, there is a large and ever-growing database documenting the positive impacts of grazing on soil carbon along with improvements in other ecosystem services that is consistent with what Savory has been saying for years. To put these numbers into perspective, a midsize car emits around 1.28 metric tons of carbon (converted from carbon dioxide) annually into the atmosphere. In 2001, Rich Conant and Keith Paustian, at Colorado State University, published a meta-analysis of 115 ranches from a variety of global environments indicating a mean annual 0.54 metric tons of carbon sequestered per hectare (ha) demonstrating the capacity for soil to capture and store carbon.

In 2011, Teague et al investigated the impact of high and low continuous grazing as compared to adaptive multi-paddock grazing (AMP) in Texas (the approach advocated by Savory) and indicated the AMP treatment had an annual three metric tons of carbon sequestered in the soil above and beyond that of the continuously grazed treatments. USDA ARS scientist Alan Franzluebbers has indicated high potential in the eastern U.S. as well. In Nature, Machmuller et al report over an eight metric ton annual increase in carbon sequestration over a three-year period following the conversion of degraded cropland to grazing land in Georgia. For context to meet an overall carbon sink (or storage capacity) for a Midwest grass-finishing beef system, our work indicates a needed 0.89 metric ton carbon sequestration to offset the entire footprint, including that from enteric methane emitted by cattle. This seems plausible based on the existing carbon sequestration literature.

Finally, the most downloaded manuscript in the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation for 2016-17 cites the beneficial components of AMP and conservation agriculture on North American food production. The authors, of which Rowntree is one, estimate that if these conservation approaches were completed on 25 percent of our crop and grasslands, the entire carbon footprint of North American agriculture could potentially be mitigated.

Holistic management is used by thousands of practitioners over millions of hectares of land. Proper adoption of animals to landscapes over a variety of precipitation levels is an efficacious land management tool. We have been on many of these ranches. We are currently summarizing a large Patagonia dataset with ecosystem measurements on over 2 million hectares of land mostly managed holistically, that is, using a decision-making framework that helps land managers to move toward their goals in a way that is economically, ecologically, and socially sound in their context. Attempting to reduce the complexity of land management to just animals and time in a reductive scientific environment, as Ketcham does, is no different than splitting hydrogen from oxygen to study water, especially using a 160-acre ranch in Utah as documenting support.

Allan Savory is a brilliant and insightful ecologist. We know no one who loves land and wildlife more. Your article did him an injustice and warrants a retraction with an apology to your readers. At least, tell the other side of the story.

Jason Rowntree, PhD

Associate Professor of Animal Science

Michigan State University

Scientific Advisor, the Savory Institute

Matt R. Raven, PhD

Professor of Community Sustainability

Michigan State University

 *

TO THE EDITOR, JASON MARKS, SIERRA CLUB MAGAZINE

Cows Will Save the Planet . . . or Not—the Savory holistic management philosophy.  Ecologists best discuss and serve the environmental cause with humility and a respect for the scientific method. Savory is somewhat deficient in both of these advantageous attributes. As Christopher Ketcham reports, he rejects the opinions of many grassland scientists. What is not mentioned is that Allan Savory has his supporters both from within and outside of the grassland research community worldwide.

He deserves credit for important contributions to this debate.

I quote:

“A few miles brought us into the midst of the buffalo, swarming in immense numbers over the plains, where they left scarcely a blade of grass standing. Mr. Preuss, who was sketching at a distance in the rear, had first noted them as large groves of timber. In the sight of such a mass of life the traveler feels a strange emotion of grandeur. When we came in view of their dark masses, there was not one among us who did not feel his heart beat quicker. It was the early part of the day, when the herds were feeding; and everywhere they were in motion.”

This observation was made by Capt. John Fremont during his 1843 expedition, which brought him fame for opening the Oregon Trail. The phrases “scarcely left a blade of grass standing” and “noted them as large groves of timber” stretch our imagination on the size and concentration of this herd of bison and its effects. This and other pioneer accounts, notably of herds of game in Africa, leave little doubt that enormous areas of grasslands were periodically subjected to massive animal impact, similar to fire in its effect, leaving “scarcely a blade of grass standing.” These natural phenomena contributed to healthy, stable grassland ecosystems over countless millennia.

Also noteworthy is that grazing animals bring and stimulate macroscopic species of life such as birds, dung beetles, and flies and microscopic life such as bacteria and fungi. They process and bury dung and make important contributions to soil structure, aeration, conservation, and health. In these respects, responsible grazing has important advantages over fire as an ecosystem process grass defoliating management tool. This is widely ignored.

Not mentioned in the article is that Savory has always insisted that grass should enjoy adequate recovery after grazing to ensure grass vigor and soil conservation. And that bare ground is to be avoided whenever possible. This point was missed in the article and is not always followed by rangeland managers. All management of grass with fire, grazing animals, or machines (mowing) is doomed to failure without adequate rest and recovery. The grass regresses and the soil erodes.

The soil is the gold standard. It is often neglected. It forms very slowly and can erode very quickly. All ecosystem management should achieve not mere conservation of soil but also the building of it. After all it has built to current levels over billions of years. Stable ecosystems build soil. So should humans managing the land in harmony with natural processes. Carbon sequestration depends on depth of soil. Subsoil and rocks cannot sequester carbon significantly. Therefore building soil, not merely conserving it, is key to maximizing future photosynthesis and ensuing carbon sequestration.

Holistic management methodology with adequate recovery needs further research with recognition of historic observations before the scientific establishment rejects it. Currently the research is scanty and lacks recognition of such variables as periodicity, drought, wet conditions, and recovery in a broad holistic approach. We cannot expect to get all the right answers unless we ask all the right questions.

The figures comparing lamb, beef, dairy, pork, and poultry CO2 are misleading if cows are grass fed, and especially so if they graze natural grasslands. Dairy, pork, poultry, and yes, feedlot beef and lamb, rely heavily on corn and other grain inputs, usually inorganic, herbicide and pesticide dependent, tending to monoculture and damaging the soil and polluting the groundwater with nitrogenous and other inorganic fertilizers. None of the grass-fed beef inputs contribute to these ecologically negative phenomena. Responsibly managed grazing allows soil to build in depth, fertility, and therefore carbon sequestration capacity.

Can cows save the planet or not? This misses the point. Don’t blame the cows. Blame the humans. How humans manage livestock can be destructive or constructive. Thus far in human history, overgrazing and ensuing horrors such as the great eroding American dust bowl of the 1930s have usually been the norm.

Peter Ardington, veterinarian and farmer

Cranburn Farm, Mandeni, KwaZuluNatal, South Africa

0 0 1 717 4093 Sierra Club 34 9 4801 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}