Holistic Grazing Management Alvaro Rigel Gallegos Rivero, Ralf Otterpohl
“The technology we wield today has greatly expanded the ways in which we can alter our environment and that, combined with the exponential increase in our numbers, has magnified our potential for causing damage. How, more than ever, we require the ability to make decisions that simultaneously consider economic, social and environmental realities, both short and long term. Given an appropriate framework for organizing management and decision making, we should be able to do this.” (Savory 1998, p.7) Abstract
The demand for food increases globally and this increase is exponential. To supply such a vast demand, farmers try to intensify the productivity of their land and livestock. Measures are mostly taken based on short term outcomes. This type of production is mostly not sustainable. Soil is depleted from its nutrients and organic matter and erosion is increasing dramatically, while productivity is dropping. Livestock can have a devastating impact on natural resources, but it also has the capability to restore the health of an ecosystem with substantial economic benefits. Holistic Grazing Management (HGM) has been developed as an ecosystem approach by Allan Savory. Pasture land is subdivided into small paddocks with a one to a few days of grass supply for the whole herd. The choice of paddocks follows a scientific approach and requires good knowledge of the characteristics of land and climate. Empirical practices in several regions of the world show promising and inspiring examples on how agricultural management can create a balance between productivity and ecology. Animal droppings in conventional pasturing will dry out and often be lost to the humus, while in HGM the droppings are coming in much higher volume and will be worked into the ground by hooves. Practical research of Joel Salatin has supplemented HGM with combining cattle grazing the paddocks with utilization of the same plot 3 days later for pastured chicken. These have different food preferences and eliminate parasites in the cow dung by feeding on them, too. Keywords: Holistic Grazing Management, Livestock, Sustainable Farming, Ecosystem Restoration
This is a working paper reflecting ongoing work. Comments and suggestions are welcome, please refer them to [email protected]. The final version of this paper will be published in the RUVIVAL Publication Series
(https://www.ruvival.de/reading/). For quotes and citations, please use the final version, or ask for special permission.
Holistic Grazing Management by Alvaro Rigel Gallegos Rivero and Ralf Otterpohl https://www.ruvival.de/livestock/ is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
ruvival.de
Table of Contents
Introduction...... 2 Conventional Livestock Production: Environmental Impact ...... 3 Holistic Grazing Management - Concept ...... 3 Scientific Skepticism ...... 4 Ecosystem Restoration ...... 5 Other Approaches ...... 6 Economic Impact ...... 7 Conclusion ...... 9 References ...... 10
Introduction
Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems (Steinfeld et al. 2006). It is important to understand the relationship between an increasing demand for livestock products, erosion and exploitation of water and soil resources. Holistic Grazing Management (HGM) is an interesting option for sustainable farming. This method is at the same time a way out of ethically inacceptable livestock farming, which gives animals free range and natural fodder. This ensures product quality, whilst reducing the ecological footprint, especially important in times of a rising demand for grass-fed livestock (Pollan 2006).
Cereals roots and tubers are losing their share in average diets to meat, dairy products and oil crops (FAO 2017; Harrison 2002). Between 1960 and 1999, meat consumption in developing countries rose by 150 %, and that of milk and dairy products could rise by further 44 % (Harrison 2002, p. 5). Between 2000-2010 there was a global growth in production of meat of 2,6 % and a 2,5 % of eggs, milk, and processed milk (FAO 2013, pp. 172–6). In developing countries, the demand grows faster than production, causing a trade deficit. Meat production will rise steeply from 1.2 million tons in the late 1990’s to 5.9 million tons in 2030, despite the fast growing exports from producing countries in Latin America, while in milk and dairy products the rise will be less steep but still considerable, from 20 million to 39 million tons per year. It is projected that the growth will be boosted by industrial enterprises. Production from recent years shows a growth twice as fast as that from traditional mixed farming systems and more than six times faster than grazing systems (FAO 2013; FAO 2017; Harrison 2002). The shift towards unsustainable practices takes place on different scales, from small-scale farmer driven deforestation to large scale deforestation driven by distant urban growth (Biello 2010).
Conventional Livestock Production: Environmental Impact
Livestock’s role in deforestation is of particular importance, especially in tropical rainforests, where the largest net losses of forests and resulting carbon losses occur. In tropical Latin America
2
for example, land used for extensive grazing has increased continuously over the past decades and most of this increase has been at the expense of forests (Steinfeld et al. 2006).
Rainforest conversion is dominated by the establishment primarily of pastures, but also cropland, irrespective of the characteristics of soils, climate regimes, and topography. In addition, soybean and cereal production primarily destined for feed production has unleashed a wave of events leading to the destruction of natural habitats over vast areas through deforestation (Steinfeld et al. 2006).
The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing, among other, to water pollution, eutrophication and the degeneration of coral reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilisers and pesticides used to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment of water resources above and below ground. Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed (Matthews 2006). Livestock is a source for air pollution, causing about 50 % of methane, 24 % of nitrous oxides emissions and 26 % carbon dioxide (FAO 2018; Gerber et al. 2013).
Holistic Grazing Management – Concept
Holistic Grazing was first proposed by Allan Savory, according to whom holistic resource management is a wildlife management technique, even where there are no livestock on the land (Savory 1983, Rangelands, p.155):
‘It is a watershed management technique even where there are no livestock on the land. It is riparian and fish management technique. It is also a method of managing livestock on the land whereby livestock can be used to reverse desertification process very economically with or without fencing. It is also a method of managing livestock on ranges or on planted pastures whereby greater production can be achieved both from the land and the animas and with greater profitability than conventionally. It is a method of making conventional range management techniques economically sound there they were economically unsound.’
According to HGM concepts, agriculture in its commercial form is producing more eroding soil than food, while transportation and energy play an equal, if not lesser role, as ecosystem deterioration on GHG emissions. The problem with ecosystem deterioration is that, due to human intervention, the ecosystem cycles are already broken and cannot preserve natural cycles which support life. The Holistic Grazing view is that livestock needs to be managed correctly to preserve these cycles and thus, the ecosystems (Coughlin 2013).
Grass that is not consumed does not biologically decay; it turns into dead dry matter, woodier in texture, which is no longer consumed by animals. Since it has not decayed, it oxidizes over long periods of time, not allowing the natural process of decay to occur and therefore not allowing
3
new grass to grow during the next year or growing season. This eventually smothers and kills the grasses in the area, allowing for woodier vegetation to grow, clearing soil from grass and therefore releasing carbon into the atmosphere. The traditional approach to battle this is to burn the oxidizing grass, which clears the soil for the new growing season, but emits high amounts of carbon by combustion into the atmosphere; carbon that is needed to feed the humus.
Following this approach, Savory claims that desertification can neither be prevented by reducing the number of grazing animals, nor by clearing dead grasslands with fire. Therefore, the best option is for the cattle and livestock to consume the grass, in an attempt to mimic natural herd movement and grazing cycles with proper understanding of the science of ecology.
By using cattle in tight groups and moving as a herd, the grass is consumed and then turned into manure, while at the same time the areas are cleared for new grass to grow. Since there is organic matter in the soil, it will nourish the roots in the soil and retain water, restoring health to the soil and therefore retaining carbon and breaking down methane. Savory claims that an Argentinian researcher applying holistic grazing methods on the Patagonian fields gathered sheep into a massive herd of 25,000 animals, causing a 50 % increase in land production in just one year (Savory 2013).
Implementation on a farm or a ranch within HGM starts with the analysis of the financial situation. This should allow farmers a better understanding of how productive their land actually is in economic terms and how the financial resources can be best employed. HGM also suggests that herds within properties should remain and be managed as tight condensed groups. Depending on the amount of dry matter produced by the land of a farmer and the amount of dry matter consumed by livestock, a relationship can be established to determine the grazing and recovery periods of the land. This is achieved by subsequently dividing the grazing areas into paddocks. The paddocks will then be scheduled for grazing and recovery. Grazing periods are recommended to be from 1 to 3 days and the recovery periods usually amount to the sum of the grazing days for all remaining paddocks. This serves to simulate herd migration without allowing for land to be grazed before completing a full recovery cycle (Butterfield, Bingham & Savory 2006).
Grazing periods are also related to the growing seasons in the year. This is due to the fact that grass growth is not constant throughout the year. HGM is intended to allow a full recovery of the grazing paddocks, however, a farmer may have more livestock than the property can sustain. This means that for a period of time, overgrazing will take place, not allowing full recovery of the paddocks. This can also be the case when the grass growth cycle takes a longer time than the actual grazing cycle scheduled for the paddocks (Butterfield, Bingham & Savory 2006).
Gathering livestock into tight groups increases animal competition for fodder, which creates a more even grazing pattern. This is especially useful when farmers attempt to control what livestock consumes and to better control the spreading of non-desired vegetation on their land
4
(Butterfield, Bingham & Savory 2006). Another approach is to use multispecies grazing techniques. The idea of mixing species for grazing in farming stems from the simple fact that different animals eat different plants and grasses. Cattle, goat, and sheep form the usual mix. Cattle prefer grass over other types of plants and are less selective when grazing than sheep or goats. Sheep and goats are more likely to eat weeds and other herbs. Sheep will prefer forbs and goats will prefer brush and shrubs. The result of the mix is that all plants will be eaten, therefore controlling weed growth and brush, while yielding more pounds of gain per acre compared to single-species grazing (Coffey 2001).
Multispecies grazing may also benefit pastures that are less diverse by encouraging more even grazing. Cattle will tend to graze taller grasses that sheep may reject and it has also been shown that sheep graze near cattle manure deposits, which cattle avoid, resulting in a more even use of pasture. Economically, this means a better resource usage and more meat production. Multispecies grazing techniques also have an advantage when it comes to intoxication threats from ingesting poisonous plants. Some will affect cattle, but not goats and sheep and vice versa. Similarly, when dealing with parasites, larvae of parasites from cattle will be ingested by goats and sheep, which do not host the larvae and are not affected by it, while the same happens from goats to sheep, cattle will ingest the larvae but it will not be able to develop. However, parasites can be shared by goats and sheep, in which case they may require special attention (Coffey 2001). Parasites in cattle are eliminated by pasturing chicken around 3 days after cattle when larvae are tall enough to be part of the chicken fodder, a practice developed by Polyface Farm in the USA by Joel Salatin (Pollan 2006).
Scientific Skepticism
Allan Savory’s work and the general ideas of the holistic approach on farming have been openly criticised by the scientific community (Monbiot 2014). The basic claim is that there is no true correlation between the implementation of the technique and the improvement of soil in the area where grazing occurs. Scientific research has also shown contradicting evidence to what is claimed by Savory as advantages of gathering large herds. One example of this is reflected in the trampling effect on soil. While Savory claims it benefits the grass growing cycle by offering a place for seeds to develop and receive water retention, scientific studies show that large herd’s trampling effect compacts land, therefore preventing water from entering the soil (Briske et al. 2011).
According to Short Duration Grazing: The Facts [1999] by the University of Arizona; farmers employing HGM were successful mainly because of an increase in the region’s rainfall and not due to the livestock management techniques. This was also observed in African territories, where after a heavy rainfall period the farming output improved. However, both North America and Africa entered drought periods in the subsequent years and did not see a true benefit from changing their cattle management to holistic approaches (Holechek et al. 2000). The same study by the University of Arizona states that short-duration grazing may facilitate an improved
5
management of livestock, giving ranchers more control over how specific parts of their ranch are grazed when compared to continuous grazing. Management may increase output and yield, but not necessarily improve health conditions. The study suggested that such techniques could be useful for some ranches if applied at moderate to conservative stocking rates to allow recovery from chronic grazing. The study suggested further research and questioned governmental endorsement of holistic grazing management (Holechek et al. 2000).
Ecosystem Restoration
Allan Savory (2013) claims that scientifically there is no clear understanding of the causes of desertification on the planet. However, he claims that micro-climate changes on small areas will eventually lead to macro-climate changes. Overgrazing an area with cattle will have an effect on the micro climate of the area, which, in contribution to other changes in the region, could lead to desertification, due to soil deterioration. Observing nature, Savory sustains that the reason for large herds of ruminants, such as the American bison or the African savanna wildebeests, to prevail for so long before human intervention is because they dung and urinate all over their grazing area and due to interaction with predators they were forced to move constantly and therefore, fertilise and not overgraze their pastures. On the other hand, major trends in farming techniques involve little movement of cattle, since without predators they are free to roam the ranges and eventually overgraze the paddocks. Savory implies that by mimicking natural cycles, ecosystems can be transformed and restored to healthier and productive conditions (Savory 2013).
Implementation of holistic grazing methods may seem like a viable option to restore grasslands and increase land productivity; however, other ecosystems may not be protected from deforestation and transformation into grasslands if holistic grazing thrives. Other examples of restoring natural environments with the implementation of planning and management exist independently from the Holistic Grazing Management approach, where livestock is used to restore the ecosystem.
The Loess plateau in China was one of the largest projects in ecosystem restoration and soil improvement ever done. The Loess plateau was restored by an intensive management program, where some areas were destined to be reforested, while others were destined for agriculture. Livestock was forced to containment and was fed in pens without access to the outer areas, since it would have damaged the recovering ecosystem, which resembles that of a forest and not of grassland (Liu 2011). This suggests that ecosystem restoration is possible, profitable, and sustainable with the absence of livestock.
On a similar scope, the forests of Yosemite National Park in the US suffered a significant recovery where grasslands where thriving. This was due to the re-introduction of wolves into the ecosystem, which were previously absent. The presence of free-roaming deer on higher grasslands, which were previously forests had deteriorated the soil and water bodies of the park, however, through
6
the addition of wolves, the territories of the deer narrowed to lower grasslands, allowing the overgrazed higher areas to restore to their previous status, increasing the population of threes and other flora species, which then lead to the return of previously absent animal species, ranging from eagles to bears (Sustainable Human 2014).
This suggests that, while grazing management techniques may eventually prove sustainable for livestock farming, the threat of deforestation and transformation is still not thoroughly addressed in Holistic Grazing Management, even when optimal ratios and schedules for cattle and grasslands are found, rising demand for livestock may still compromise forests and other ecosystems due to the increasing need for grazing paddocks.
Economic Impact
In Chihuahua, Mexico, ranchers facing bankruptcy turned to holistic grazing and quickly recovered financially. The ranchers where supported by local authorities and were given broader land to work with under the condition that they would attend seminars and training provided by the government with holistic approaches under contract. The results, according to the production yields were a success, since cattle farmers reported profits in subsequent years and increase their cattle population supporting it by restoring soil health to the grasslands of the Mexican Chihuahuanese Desert. Nevertheless, they considered 10 hectares per animal on their implementation, sustaining that it was not the amount of animals that determined success, but rather the amount of time cattle spent grazing on a paddock (Adams 2015; Díaz 2013; Schwartz 2015).
A farm in Ontario, Canada using the holistic approach used 0.65 hectares per animal and reported soil health improvement and profitability. While the area was considerably reduced, this seemingly did not affect productivity and the farm improved its general conditions. Having such a reduced land and due to the need to concentrate cattle on a paddock without allowing it to step and trample other paddocks of grass, intensive fence use was necessary (Grazing Days 2017; Slomp 2013). This leads to a planning and scheduling problem which does not apply any land/animal ratio similar to the Mexican project. It also implies complications related to water distribution for the cattle, since the farm reported having to build a path for the cattle to access water without compromising paddocks not yet programmed for grazing. The building and rebuilding of the fence implies complications and costs, since the fences are electric in order to prevent cattle from bending them or trampling over (Borrelli et al. 2012; Grazing Days 2017; Slomp 2013).
Similar problems are found if farmers opt for multispecies grazing techniques. Fencing is widely used, since it’s considered economic and convenient, however, containing varied species requires a bigger input of materials and design than containing a single species. Predators are also considered a threat and although some may turn away in the presence of cattle, other might not stop without additional support from guardians or sturdier fences. Farmers also may have
7
problems adapting to a multispecies herd, as specific needs and behaviors of different species require different skills (Coffey 2001).
Optimization is also a problem when dealing with water supply for animals in multispecies farming. Cattle tend to stay close to water sources and therefore manure spreads near them. Having important areas without organic fertiliser, farmers opted for using hoses and containers with constant relocation to supply water to the herds. Rates between land and herd size are not defined and depend on the empirical practice of the farmers and also rates from species to species when mixing in a single herd. While some suggest a single sheep per cattle head, others suggest 2, all based on the numbers that worked in their particular farms and on a trial an error perspective (ENTSC 2013).
Lack of scientific support has not deterred governments from supporting the approaches of HGM. However, variations from farm to farm, regions, climates and several other factors produce skepticism among farmers and a growing trend of rejection to the scientific community driven by the deterioration of soils by the use of agrochemical production methods (Hoth 2014).
A major drawback of the transition from industrial to organic farming is the productivity decrease. Organic dairy cows produce about 7 litres of milk per day, while industrial dairy cows produce 30 litres. Organic beef production requires one year producing the same amount of meat that industrial cows produce in 90 to 120 days, thus, organic beef costs more. Although organic meat is healthier than industrial meat and of higher quality, consumers are used to the taste and prices of industrial meat, placing the organic meat into a higher price category, not as widely consumed (Díaz 2013). However, a system that can be operated forever is tremendously more productive that the flash in the pan of self-exterminating industrial farming practices.
Conclusion
Holistic Grazing Management comes as an alternative to the conventional practices of livestock production. It is designed to be an integral part of the environment when developing production schedules, matching the environmental health of the ecosystem with the production needs of the farmers. It is still challenging to build enough convincing evidence to demonstrate its effectiveness and relationship with environmental improvement; however, this has not deterred the general interest of farmers, who in face of bankruptcy turn to this alternative for an increase in productivity, not necessarily with environmental concerns as their primary motivation.
Due to intense exploitation of land and resources in conventional farming, Holistic Grazing Management comes as a less effective (in a short-term perspective) production system when comparing yields and output; however, the empirical evidence shows that it is more sustainable in the long term. The major drawback of a widespread use of Holistic Grazing Management in farms around the world is that industrial farming is still cheaper (excluding external costs and health damage) and faster.
8
Holistic Grazing Management has yet to demonstrate that its premises are valid, profitable and beneficial for the ecosystems. Other management approaches do not involve livestock on the fields at all and factors such as rain increase seem to play a bigger role in ecosystem restoration than the holistic approach. However, as an alternative, the increased effectiveness of farms implementing livestock management with a holistic focus may be the first real step into reducing the use of industrial fertilisers and chemicals, such as pesticides, which then may prove beneficial to the environment and eventually achieve a sustainable and profitable output for farmers. HGM is a sort of equivalent to ecological sanitation approaches. It can also be applied for very small herds in family farms and very well combined with agroforestry systems.
References
Adams, A 2015, Manejo Holistico en Chihuahua: Las Damas Ranch, In Practice no. 161, Holistic Management International, viewed 7 March 2018,
9
FAO 2013, FAO Statistical Yearbook 2013: World Food and Agriculture, FAO Statistical Yearbook, vol. 2013, FAO, Rome, viewed 7 March 2018,
10
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, Castel, V, Rosales, M & de Haan, C 2006, Livestock's long shadow: Environmental issues and options, FAO, Rome. Sustainable Human 2014, How Wolves Change Rivers, online video, Sustainable Human, viewed 1 June 2016,
11