Activity 3.3 - Regenerative Agriculture Part 2

 Malik Hamideh

Professor Walker

ENVR-1302-002

27 February 2024

Activity 3.3 - Regenerative Agriculture Part 2 

1.0 Points of View

Interpret the authors’ frames of reference, perspective, and orientation.

• The writers of each of these interpretations have expressed doubt about Allan Savory's assertions. (Briske, Bestelmeyer, and Brown, 2014) emphasize the importance of his assertion that actual practices are implemented. There is no scientific evidence to back up Allan Savory's statements. They say, "Although Savory's assertions may be compelling, they are not credible when subjected to scientific scrutiny." In a different study, (Briske et al., 2014) refute Savory's assertions as to how well his approach works to mitigate climate change or turn deserts green, writing, "Savory's assertion that holistic management can reverse climate change and green deserts is without empirical support." (Ketcham, 2017) critiques Allan Savory's holistic management approach, saying it requires more proof to be implemented. 

2.0 Purpose

Infer the authors’ goals and objectives.

• In the context of rangeland management and environmental conservation, the authors' main aims and objectives are to advance scientific rigor, evidence-based practice, and critical assessment of holistic management approaches. Their objective is to enhance comprehension of the intricacies associated with rangeland ecosystem management and provide guidance for decision-making procedures across several tiers.

3.0 Questions at Issue

Present the problems and issues the authors write about.

• The absence of scientific proof is the main concern raised by all of the readings. They stress the significance of having scientific backing for any land management concepts. Because they have the supporting data, the authors also want there to be no mixing up of strategies that have been tried and tested in the past, such as various grazing systems. 

•    Ketcham tackles the shortcomings of Allan Savory's holistic management concepts. He laments the continued lack of data supporting his concept, which has no practical use in reducing the effects of climate change.

• Briske and others oppose this excessive focus on cattle. Raising more animals might not be a good way to address environmental problems like climate change. Savory's strategy might not adequately address the intricate relationships that exist between ecological health and cattle management.

4.0 Information

Write the data, facts, observations, and experiences the authors present. There are numerous. This may be your longest section.

• Scientific Literature Review: Each author reviews the body of research on holistic management philosophy, rangeland management, and related subjects. They base their claims and findings about the efficacy of various management strategies on peer-reviewed papers, research, and publications.

• Expert Testimony and Interviews: To shed light on the scientific controversy surrounding holistic management techniques, Ketcham (2017) presents expert testimony and interviews with scientists, ecologists, and land management specialists. The author offers a variety of thoughts and insights from subject matter specialists.

• Historical Context and Background Material: The development of holistic management theory and its progress throughout time are discussed in the historical context and background material provided by Briske et al. (2014) and Ketcham (2017). 

• Empirical study Findings: Briske et al. (2014) address empirical study findings about the efficacy of holistic management approaches, specifically addressing the assertions made by Allan Savory about the mitigation of climate change and desert greening. They provide information and proof from research investigations that cast doubt on the veracity of these assertions.

• Observations of Rangeland Conditions: Using their experience as rangeland ecology researchers, Briske, Bestelmeyer, and Brown (2014) and Briske et al. (2014) offer observations of rangeland conditions and ecological processes. They talk about the intricacies of rangeland ecosystems and how management decisions may affect the flora, soil, and animals.

• Case Studies and Anecdotal Evidence: Ketcham (2017) provides case studies and anecdotal evidence about the application of holistic management techniques. The author highlights both achievements and difficulties faced in the field as she talks about the experiences of practitioners and land managers who have embraced Allan Savory's methodology.

5.0 Interpretation and Inference

Explain each of the authors’ conclusions and solutions. 

5.1 Briske et al (2014). 

• The writers come to the conclusion that the idea of multi-paddock grazing should be separated from Allan Savory's unsupported assertions. While multi-paddock grazing is a valid and scientifically validated method, they contend that Savory's assertions regarding its efficacy in mitigating climate change and greening the desert are not substantiated by empirical data. This result implies that it is necessary to distinguish between Savory's speculative claims and the sound principles of multi-paddock grazing. The authors recommend that the nomenclature used to characterize various grazing techniques be more precise. They specifically recommend differentiating between Allan Savory's holistic management philosophy and its unverified claims and multi-paddock grazing, which is a management technique backed by scientific data. 

5.2 Briske et al. (2014). 

• The writers come to the conclusion that there is insufficient scientific evidence to back up Allan Savory's assertions that the Savory technique may reverse climate change or green deserts. They conclude from their study that there is not enough empirical support for Savory's strategy to be successful in reaching these lofty objectives. This conclusion emphasizes the value of scientific rigor in assessing management approaches and calls for a critical evaluation of Savory's claims. The authors suggest that evidence-based techniques for rangeland management be given more weight. They promote giving top priority to management techniques that have been verified by science and are backed by actual data. This answer is in line with the more general demand for an environmental management strategy that is more rigorous and scientific, where choices are made based on solid scientific principles rather than on hearsay or personal convictions.

5.3 Ketcham (2017).           

• An examination of Allan Savory's holistic management theory is provided in "Allan Savory’s holistic management theory falls short on science" by Ketcham (2017). The article's conclusion is that Savory's theory is ineffective in solving environmental issues, notably desertification and climate change, and lacks adequate scientific data to back up its assertions. Although Savory's method may have become more well-liked in some quarters, Ketcham contends that it does not adhere to the norms of empirical validation and scientific rigor. The author's suggested fixes are inferred from the critique itself. Ketcham suggests an evidence-based approach to environmental management by drawing attention to the scientific flaws in Savory's holistic management paradigm. The author recommends that land management strategies should be based on solid scientific concepts and backed by empirical study, rather than depending on unverified or unfounded assertions. This method comprises carrying out thorough scientific research to assess the efficacy of various management techniques and ranking those that provide measurable advantages based on factual data.

6.0 Concepts

Identify and explain theories, definitions, axioms, laws, principles, or models you find in the authors' writings.

• Holistic Management Theory: The author's critique heavily relies on Allan Savory's holistic management theory, which is covered in Ketcham (2017). According to this hypothesis, grazing methods that are holistic can both lessen the effects of climate change and heal damaged landscapes. Ketcham's criticism calls into question the theory's scientific foundation by emphasizing its dearth of empirical evidence.

• Multi-Paddock Grazing: Briske, Bestelmeyer, and Brown (2014) address the idea of multi-paddock grazing in their publications. This method enhances the productivity and health of rangelands by alternating animals among many paddocks or grazing areas. The authors highlight this practice's scientific validity as a management method and set it apart from Savory's holistic management approach.

• Savory method: The Savory technique, linked to Allan Savory's holistic management philosophy, is mentioned by both Briske et al. (2014) and Ketcham (2017). To reverse desertification and rebuild damaged landscapes, this strategy uses holistic grazing methods. The writers assess this method's effectiveness and its promises critically, emphasizing the absence of supporting data from science.

7.0 Assumptions

Explain the authors’ presuppositions, assumptions, and those things taken for granted.

• When assessing rangeland management techniques, all writers assume that scientific legitimacy and evidence-based reasoning are important. They believe that to evaluate the efficacy of various strategies and inform management choices, scientific rigor is crucial.

•  The texts all operate under the premise that rangeland ecosystems are intricate, dynamic systems. The writers' explanations of the possible effects of management techniques on biodiversity, ecological processes, and ecosystem services are predicated on this premise.

• There is an assumed knowledge of Allan Savory's holistic management theory and the assertions that go along with it in Ketcham's (2017) critique. Although the criticism questions the theory's scientific foundation, it makes the assumption that readers are familiar with Savory's guiding ideas and methods.

8.0 Consequences

Write what the authors’ end results, outcomes, and/or effects are.

• The most likely purpose of Ketcham's paper is to increase readers' awareness of the shortcomings and restrictions of Allan Savory's holistic management paradigm. The result could be that readers will have a greater understanding of the scientific validity of Savory's claims. The paper provides a critical analysis of Savory's theories, challenging readers to consider environmental management options critically. The outcome can be a more skeptical audience that questions the viability of various hypotheses and approaches.

• A more cautious and evidence-based approach to land management, with a higher emphasis on scientific rigor and empirical validation of management approaches, is likely to be the outcome of Briske et al.'s critique of the Savory method. The writers most likely want to put Savory's theories and practices through a scientific test, pointing out any contradictions, errors, or a dearth of actual data demonstrating the viability of his strategy. Readers may walk away from the experience with a deeper grasp of Savory's claims' scientific validity—or lack thereof. The writers may aim to dispel myths or exaggerations about the Savory approach through their critique, especially about its capacity to reduce climate change or green deserts.

• A more sophisticated and nuanced discussion of rangeland management techniques with a stronger focus on scientific validity and evidence-based decision-making is anticipated as a result of Briske, Bestelmeyer, and Brown's critique. The writers probably want to make it clear how Allan Savory's particular statements relate to the larger idea of multi-paddock grazing. They want to avoid misunderstanding by doing this for readers and practitioners who might mistakenly associate the two methods. A better comprehension of the distinctions and parallels between multi-paddock grazing and holistic management may be the result. The writers stress the value of scientific rigor and evidence-based practice in rangeland management via their critique. Through close examination of Savory's unverified assertions, they encourage a more critical and analytical method of assessing management tactics. 

Works Cited

Briske, D. D., Bestelmeyer, B. T., & Brown, J. R. (2014). Savory's unsubstantiated claims should not be confused with multi-paddock grazing. Rangelands, 36(1), 39-42

Briske, David  D., et al. “The Savory Method Can Not Green Deserts or Reverse ...”, Society for Range Management, www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/4472/RANGELANDS-D-13-00044.pdf. 

Ketcham, Kristopher. “Allan Savory’s Holistic Management Theory Falls Short on Science.” Sierra Club, 23 Feb. 2017, www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature/allan-savory-says-more-cows-land-will-reverse-climate-change.