A contentious debate

I received an interesting comment on one of my previous post regarding the debate on desertification and how the desertification process could actually be reversed by re-introducing livestock on deserted land. In response to the comment, I decided to extend on the debate and re-evaluate my thoughts on whether Allan Savory should receive any merit at all for his theory. In other words, is Savory’s argument entirely wrong and absurd to be considering as a potential method for reversing desertification?

As mentioned in my previous post, Savory believes in holistic management, which is, in brief, a way for farmers to manage resources through a holistic planned grazing approach that effectively reverse desertification. Many have critiqued his theory by scientifically proving that this would not work whatsoever (see blog). The lack of scientific information and relevant data were also underlined as one of the major talk’s (TedTalk) critique, making his theory and some of his arguments all the more incoherent.

However, after thoroughly researching on the topic, I did find an article (Itskan et al, 2013) that was written in response to the Briske et al(2013) report, previously discussed in my blogpost. The latter report simply proved Savory’s argument wrong, where it was argued that holistic management (and more precisely, intensive rotational grazing, see blog) did not increase vegetation production neither ameliorate soil hydrology. In opposition Itskan et al 2013 paper acted as a rebuttal to re-evaluate Briske et al (2013)‘s argument and noted that their report was in fact not an analysis Savory’s theory but rather of an unrelated method of grazing and thus was “not reflective of its efficacy”. Furthermore, the study showed how ten farmers from around the world had seen their land become increasingly healthier with greater biodiversity when using flexible grazing methods such as adaptive management.

Teague et al 2011, in a peer-reviewed article, evaluate the impact of adaptive management with multi-paddock grazing (a ‘high animal density, short periods of grazing and long term recovery of the land’ method, Savory et al 1980) and the restoration of natural resources and conservation. The findings suggest that ranchers who use the method of adaptive management on their land, experience positive results regarding the long term maintenance of natural resources whilst sustaining economic growth. 

In all, both articles agree that some planned methods of grazing do cause resource degradation that accelerate desertification processes, but insist that it is the chosen method that is most important in determining the environmental condition of the land. They argue in favor of adaptive management grazing (a.k.a holistic management) as the solution for a desirable environment, which supports Savory’s theory on planned grazing and desertification.

What I think of this debate:

The dearth of literature on this topic questions the theory’s efficacy. It is yet to be developed and implementing some of the theory’s suggested methods would be risky. Although holistic management could potentially stop desertification in the world (and at this stage, it consists of a very small chance of doing so) I believe livestock still have a significant impact on our environment, for instance, as an important source methane, deforestation etc… Therefore, scholars would need to consider the full effects of re-introducing livestock and ensure that it would not have any wider consequences and undesirable environmental impacts on our planet

After all, why increase livestock in the world when the rational should be to decrease its already exceeding numbers?

Progress Report

In this blog, I hoped to explore the numerous impact of livestock farming and its impact on the world's environment. So far, I intended to investigate on how animal agriculture is changing our use of the land, through deforestation, land degradation, deforestation. Throughout my blogposts I made sure to give my true and honest opinion on what was being read and argued. I also tried to incorporate cutting-edge and current debates on some of the aforementioned topics. In between the rather "academic" posts, I have kept you updated with my 30 day vegan challenged inspired by the documentary 'Cowspiracy. For the next few post, I aim to further my investigation on animal agriculture and its impact on biodiversity, fresh-waterground/water ecosystems and oceans while teasing out case studies such as the burger industry, the methane debate and much more. 

But as my 30-Day Vegan challenge came to an end, I realized three things:

- Firstly - though it may have been used to attract more people into doing it, the challenge was actually more challenging that I thought it would be, and an actual challenge. It is only when you start becoming a vegan that you realize how meat (and dairy products, eggs) is quite literally everywhere. It is hard not to get tempted when being with friends and family, but I did it (once a meat lover) so you can do it too!

- Secondly - I noticed the only way I could go through with this challenge was by almost ‘forgetting’ meat existed, literally taking the word out of your head. Some people may find that they “cannot live without meat” but I realized it was all about forgetting about it. Tip for future vegans: When food shopping, I used to base my meals on: meat and “the rest” (the rest being vegetables, rice, pasta…). The trick to become vegan is basing your meals and recipes on everything else but meat and use your creative minds that’s a +.
- Thirdly - 30 days of a challenging eating later… I had a stream of consciousness where I realized that actually it was no longer at all challenging to eat without meat. I plan to continue this veganism, refusing all types of red meat, chicken, and fish to an extent (though I’m sorry to say that I will continue to eat sushi :/). Dairy products were never a problem, I never liked milk but eggs however are an issue since they are in almost everything we eat.

What's happening on Social Mea(t)dia?

For a few weeks now, I have seen an increasing number of ‘posts’ and ‘shares’ on Facebook and Instagram relating to the debate of livestock farming and its environmental impact. Now I don’t know if it is because I am unconsciously and obsessively looking out for anything ‘meat’-related, but I feel there might be a growing global concern on the issue. This is what have come across with:

The last screenshot was a post written by renown fashion designer Stella McCartney who started a new hashtag craze with #LessMeatLessMeat. Don’t be surprised if you find the following image on your feed tonight, we often underestimate the power of hashtags and social media:

Stella, Mary and Paul (and yes, Paul McCartney) claim a way forward in reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be to adopt the Meat Free Mondays initiative a.k.a #MFM (what we wouldn’t do for a new cool hastag) by skipping meat for one day to reduce your carbon footprint and improve your health. They even created a not-for-profit campaign launched in 2009 to raise awareness about the issue. Now, Keep Calm and listen to Paul:

Whilst I believe this is already a step forward in raising awareness with a good advertising strategy in using popular figures such as the McCartney family for targeting music and fashion fanatics, would it make much of a difference as a whole? Though for religious reasons, don’t we already have a ‘Meatless Friday’ where the only meat ‘allowed’ is fish? Wouldn’t it be all a ‘déjà-vu’?

On a more radical note, I believe it should not be a one-day a week habit but an every other day one. We should aim to eat meat once a week and maybe then will we see proper changes in greenhouse gas emissions. A radical decrease in meat consumption and thus a decrease in demand would bring about profit declines for the meat industries, forcing them to decrease their amount of meat production.

Part 2: Land Use and Livestock: The Desertification Debate

Desertification refers to the persistent land degradation in dry-land ecosystems resulting from various factors such as variations in climate and human activities (UNCCD, cited in WMO). Apart from the great number of natural factors contributing to desertification, it is often the result of long term failure to balance human demand for ecosystem services and the amount the ecosystem can supply (greenfacts.com). A growing world population is increasing pressures on dryland ecosystems such as livestock grazing for food, building materials, irrigations. In 2005, it was reported that 41% of Earth’s total area were occupied by drylands of which 88% were used for grazing (UNEP,1992). (see desertification map)

Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Overgrazing represents one of the main human activities contributing to desertification (Middleton, 1993). When a grazing land starts to loose its soil quality, plant diversity and starts to develop minimal land cover (Ibanez et al 2007), the land’s carrying capacity is exceeded by livestock overgrazing. The land is unable to support the excessive large number of herds grazing off it, causing an alteration in both quantity and quality of vegetation. Desertification related processes affect rainfall and cloud patterns, biodiversity as well as the global carbon cycle where damaged soil releases carbon back into the atmosphere (UN, 1977). For instance, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Report on Desertification (2005) shows how dust storms in China adversely affect Japan, the Korean peninsula and even influences air quality in North America.

Source: Chris Madden 

As I was researching on the topic, I came across a cutting edge debate on desertification to which I wish to reflect on in this second part of my post.

Despite the rather extensive academic scientific knowledge that is documented on livestock overgrazing as a cause of desertification (see above arguments), Allan Savory, a considerably renown Zimbabwean biologist suggests livestock grazing can put an end to desertification.

Now I dare not post the Ted Talk  (2015) on this blog for it contrasting all of its values and beliefs but I came up with a quick summary of what it said:

In brief, he argued that we could reverse global desertification by a 400% increase in livestock grassing and an introduction of holistic management and planned grazing system. If the grass does not decay biologically, then the soil begins to die. Traditionally farmers used to burn grass in order to remove dead materials so that the soil could regenerate. However he argues that this technique is a great source of pollution and consequently the only potential way to go about it is to use bunched and moving livestock to deal sustainably with this problem. He also claims that the hooves of animals break up the crust of algae that previously stopped the absorption of water into the land, and therefore their periodic trampling assures a good cover of the soil (Ted Talk, 2015).

My initial reaction to this talk was rather enthusiastic. We could continue eating meat (and even more of it) and at the same time stop desertification!  Savory had presented his theory in such a visual and simple manner that his holistic management seemed like a reasonable idea. However, I doubted some of his arguments:

-       Firstly he argued, that livestock should be re-introduced on to already 'desertified' land to enable “biological decay and soil regeneration” but what would animals feed on if they are introduced on deserted land?, would we have farm feed for them, causing an even greater amount of deforestation and desertification? 

-       Secondly, he talks about how hunting behaviours enables natural animal trampling.  Unfortunately for Savory, not all deserted areas of the world are being trampled by hunted animals and in fact most of these areas have lost all types of biodiversity, causing species to migrate to other areas of the world.

In response to these doubts, I researched for some potential critiques that arose from this talk. TheJournal of Agricultural System, published a review of experimental results on intensive rotational grazing (proposed through Savory’s holistic management) and its impact on grassland which proved that this technique in no ways improve soil hydrology or the general increase in vegetation production (Briske et al, 2013) to which Savory had claimed the contrary. Similarly, the InternalJournal of Biodiversity with important empirical evidence, proved the following:

“Ecologically, the application of holistic management principles of trampling and intensive foraging are as detrimental to plants, soils, water storage, and plant productivity as are conventional grazing systems" (Carter et al, 2014).

Furthermore, George Monbiot wrote post on his blog regarding the inaccuracy of Savory’s arguments, in which he recalls his conversation with Savory on his controversial desertification talk. Unlike Savory, Monbiot gives a wide range of evidence as to why his theory is scientifically impossible to reproduce. His main argument is that Savory’s statements are not supported by empirical evidence and that in the end his techniques to more harm than good. “If you intend to make a massive and extraordinary scientific claim, and build your position around it, you had better ensure that it has been properly tested, which is why the peer review process exists” - (Monbiot, 2015).

Source: edited by Kelly Nehr

It is important to remain open minded and critical when people claim to have found ‘the one last and only solution’ (Savory, 2015) to an enduring environmental problem. Unfortunately science is not as simple as it may sometimes seem to be, but on the bright side, here are some alternatives to consider in dealing with desertification:

Sneak Peak into a Vegan Kitchen

For some of you that will be taking up the vegan challenge for environmental concerns or simply just as a personal challenge, I thought I would give you an idea of what my ‘vegan kitchen’ looks like. 

Now although this may seem relatively healthy, you could be eating crisps for breakfast, lunch and dinner and still be a vegan (the unhealthy version of veganism).

PS : This shop lasted me a week and only cost 12 pounds. It’s a bargain to be vegan! 

How accurate are zero deforestation agreements?

Yesterday, I came across a recent study (Gibbs et al, 2015) on beef industries committing to zero deforestation agreements which I found would be a good topic for discussion for today’s blogpost. After last week’s post about the impacts of livestock farming on deforestation, I wanted to have a further look into the ways beef industries have tackled this environmental issue, so far.

We are all aware of ‘sustainable goods’, ‘eco-friendly’ products or companies that strive for a sustainable future. If you haven’t come across this, check out McDonald’s environmental culture here.

I have always been sceptical about these commitments because how can we be sure that they are effectively applied in the long run? And how much is really being done at the local level?

In April 2015 and in an eight point commitment, McDonald, the world’s largest fast food meat chain, agreed to stop contributing to deforestation in order to preserve environments and biodiversity that were at risk due to livestock farming and plantations (Srinivas, 2015).

However, considering McDonald is a global company with a relatively large reach, scale and number of suppliers, I believe it would be hard to determine whether their sustainable promise is applied right down at the plantations levels. Reliant on a myriad of cattle suppliers, it becomes extremely hard for McDonald to trace down all of its cattle and ensuring that it is entirely deforestation-free is almost and surely impossible. Furthermore, applying monitoring systems have proven to be inefficient due to the growing concern of ‘cattle laundering’, where cattle may be raised and fattened on deforested land but sold to legal registered ranchers before arriving at the slaughterhouse (See Figure 1).

Despite the complex nature of tackling deforestation, scholar Holly Gibbs remains rather optimistic about the situation. Her study found that public agreements made by beef suppliers could have a real impact on rancher’s behaviours thus contributing to the preservation of the Amazonian forest. Indeed, a 2009 agreement, signed by meatpacking companies JBS-Friboi, Bertin, Marfrig and Minerva to remove deforestation from their supply chain, was widely successful with the percentage of deforested land per supplier falling from 36%, in 2009, to 4% in 2013 (Gibbs et al, 2015).

After reading and reflecting on this intriguing study, I felt it has really helped me to clear my thoughts on the rather platonic image I had of beef industries ‘sustainable culture’. I believed committing to a zero-deforestation agreement was more to do with PR and image of the company than actually taking action and making a difference. However and although there is still a long way to go with cattle monitoring systems, I was proved the opposite and I believe zero-deforestation agreements are a huge step forward in protecting the Amazon forest.