Desertification is defined by NASA as a ‘reduction in the productivity of the land that is not reversible,’ which is evidenced by degradation in the form of vegetation loss and erosion. The connection between livestock and desertification was first drawn in the 1930s, when the Dust Bowl devastated the Midwest and the cause was largely attributed to mismanaged grazeland at the hands of ranchers. It is undeniable that desertification is a serious concern, but the proper solution is highly debated. Although this phenomenon is natural and caused by erosion from rainfall or vegetation loss from drought, it is seriously exacerbated by human activity, particularly overgrazing, unsustainable agricultural practices, and climate change. The U.N. estimates that 24% of land is in the process of degradation worldwide, with 20% of this designated as cropland and 25% as rangeland. Desertification also has wide-reaching effects. Approximately 1 billion people live in regions affected by desertification, which can intensify poverty, decrease food security, and increase water stress. This loss of vegetation means a decrease in the capacity of an important carbon sink.
Many, if not all, of the regulations attempting to address desertification have targeted ranchers. One of the first key propositions came from Garrett Hardin, who cited the desertification of public rangeland in his famed 1968 article, The Tragedy of the Commons, suggesting that land as a public resources are bound to be degraded as each individual attempts to exploit the system by grazing more than sustainable. Hardin argued that privatization was one of the only viable responses to this social phenomenon. As a response to the Dust Bowl, the U.S. Government subsequently enacted the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934, which, in line with Hardin’s theory, began to privatize the range through a permitting system. Such regulations have been largely environmentally successful, deterring further desertification in many cases. However, they have not always garnered favor among ranchers, who have – perhaps rightfully – shouldered much of the blame for desertification in today’s society.
Allan Savory, a wildlife biologist in Zimbabwe, began his career like most others concerned about desertification – by targeting ranchers. In the 1950s, Savory advocated for removing ranchers and opposed animal agriculture in an attempt to combat desertification. However, he did not find these efforts to be drastic enough – and thus he recommended the reduction of the elephant population in the area. Savory remarks that in the years following his suggestion, “we shot 40,000 elephants to try to stop the damage.” According to his now-famed TED Talk, he found that the state of the land “worsened” – which he assumed, but could not verify, was a direct result of his elephant massacre. Indeed, he claims that decision as “…the saddest and greatest blunder of my life, and … will carry that to my grave.”
After seeing the land continue to degrade, though without verifying that it was a result of his management practices, Savory began to question the well-established correlation between livestock and desertification in the African savanna. He argues that these environments are home to numerous native, herd-forming, grazing animals. How did these species live in harmony with the land before humans became involved? His attention was drawn to a discrepancy: in the past, wild, migratory herds dominated the environment; meanwhile today, livestock herds are more stagnant, occupying a certain plot of land for extended periods of time. With the stress of hunting, urbanization, and climate change, natural herds have reduced in number, so Savory makes an intriguing argument for holistic management, or the “use [of] livestock, bunched and moving, as a proxy for former herds and predators, and mimic nature.” Herd migration, he argues, leaves a protective layer of compacted soil that aids in regeneration and slows erosion.
In the following years, Savory conducted a series of what he deemed “experiments” on plots of land in Zimbabwe, claiming to see large improvements once the movement and grazing of herds were minutely managed. The evidence – merely a series of before-and-after photographs – is, however, qualitative and hard to confirm. Savory used his experiments to popularize holistic resource management (HM), or the ‘Savory Grazing Method,’ which he expanded upon in another 1983 paper. Savory claims that his method would ostensibly “… take enough carbon out of the atmosphere and safely store it in the grassland soils for thousands of years, and if we just do that on about half the world’s grasslands… we can take us back to pre-industrial levels while feeding people. I can think of almost nothing that offers more hope for our planet, for your children, for their children and all of humanity.”
Savory’s ideas and their implications have been heavily and repeatedly scrutinized by the scientific and civilian community. Many have reacted to his sweeping conclusions by highlighting his lack of quantifiable evidence and questioning the repeatability of his experiments. Savory only has 2 published papers that are mostly theoretical, and his most complete paper is published only on his own website – which is, to say the least, a big warning sign. Recently, a review of the evidence for HM concluded that it “does not increase plant or animal production, or improve plant community composition, or benefit soil surface hydrology compared to other grazing strategies,” unequivocally refuting Savory’s stance on the manner. Not only does HM not halt desertification, but Savory fails to consider the harmful methane produced by the cattle for which he so vehemently advocates.
Ranchers have a long history of opposing and demonizing government regulation – without providing a better solution – often due to the valid concern that privatizing land disadvantages poor farmers and instead caters to rich corporations. As a result, the prevailing dogma in agricultural regions such as the Midwest is that the widespread regulation of farmland by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is an overreach of governmental authority. Such ideology has lead to conflict as recently as 2016, when supporters of Cliven Bundy, anti-government rancher in a dispute with the BLM, perpetrated an armed takeover of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. Ranchers and animal agriculture advocates have thus seemingly latched onto Savory’s fringe theories. In the wake of climate change, these are heated issues, and industry will take any chance it can to convince consumers to eat more meat. Many prominent proponents of meat consumption have aligned themselves with Savory. With his TED Talk now at 5.4 million views, it is clear that his ideology is also pandering to public sentiment and supporting a culture of consumption so prevalent especially in the United States. In one short video, Savory takes the onus off individuals to change their habits, and instead tells them to keep consuming. It seems that Savory is making quick conclusions based on insufficient evidence, and his (pseudo) “science” has the potential to provide fodder for anti-climate change advocates.