Eat more meat and save the world

It doesn’t matter how often miracles are disproved; our willingness to believe in them remains undiminished. Miracle cures, miracle crops, miracle fuels, miracle financial instruments, miracle profi

All the grazing management tips you need

Subscribe to read this article and over 2,500 more!

Subscribe today!

If you're already a subscriber, log in here.

7 thoughts on “Eat more meat and save the world

  1. This is a post from Christopher Gill who was having trouble getting this post to appear. If you try to post a comment and do not hear from us, please let us know. We are unclear what Mr. Gill’s problem with posting was, and so need more input to know how to fix it.



    Dear Mr. Monbiot,

    I am the Christopher Gill you discuss in the article above. I am a Texas businessman with a liberal education: I graduated from Le Rosey in Switzerland and also the Wharton School. In reading the excerpt from your website bio I would say that we are pretty much on the same page in terms of what we claim to think.

    My family ranches 32,000 acres in far-West Texas where we practice holistic management. Cattle’s grazing is a very important practice in maintaining a bio-diverse wildlife population. In reference to your skepticism, this is empirical experience, as I understand it.

    Some years ago Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in conjunction with every major wildlife agency, state and federal, in the United States published a paper called “Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer” which said that what we do with cattle harms desert mule deer.

    This paper, a small book really, referenced many studies, which in turn referenced many other studies. So I read them all and I discovered that none tested planned grazing. So, I wrote a series of letters to the authors, which deconstructed every one of those studies in terms of whether or not they had ever tested Alan Savory’s grazing precepts, which we have employed with such success. There is no way the authors could have read the articles and reached a different conclusion: sloppy scholarship, upholstering their reference section with unread citations.

    I am not an academic, and by the way that is an important credential. Nor, as you suggest, am I an evangelical, or advocate for alternative medicine or any other wacky doctrine or practice. I’m a pragmatic businessman and wildlife advocate completely fed up with the wreckage being done to the environment by the agribusiness companies and their cronies in the governments, agencies and universities. Unlike them, I get no money for what I have to say on this.

    I have a blog, which is found at The paper which Savory referred and much more is published there.

    The specific paper is here:

    I am familiar with the other studies that you cite, and are referenced in readers’ comments, and know that they did not disprove Savory for the simple reason that they did not test planned grazing. The agencies, universities and other organizations whose approval of Savory and like-minded practitioners you apparently require, notwithstanding your declared suspicion of their motives, methods and outcomes, would never publish any paper written by me that discredits their pseudoscientific methods and sloppy scholarship.

    Cattle are just one of many animals that are necessary for the health of the habitats that they occupy. Habitat decline is blamed on “invasive species,” including cattle and many others. In fact, habitat decline, also known as desertification, coincides with the removal of herding ruminants whose combined grazing and hoof action naturally “tilled” the soil, and, tended and fertilized the plants. Although much desertification is rightly blamed on poor ranching and agricultural practices, the root cause of grassland desertification worldwide is the decimation of large herding animals, their predators and cousin creatures essential to ecosystem health.

    Biodiversity – the diversity of life forms – is essential for ecological health. For the plant community to be healthy, it must be impacted by a wide variety of animal life. For the animal community to be vibrant, it must be supported by a wide variety of plant life. And neither can live without abundant soil life. Animals, plants and healthy soil in harmony determine whether water, minerals and sunlight can be used by what is called the ecosystem, food chain, web of life, or Mother Nature.

    Any English gardener will recognize the commonsense in the foregoing, which in a nutshell summarizes what Savory says.

    Planned grazing is not a grazing ‘system’ at all. It is a decision-making process, which applies these insights. It works for us at Circle Ranch, and for thousands of others on 40-million acres worldwide. It will work for anyone who understands the insights and troubles him or herself with the necessary planning.

    Christopher Gill
    San Antonio, Texas

    1. Kathy,
      I also made a comment on this post and included links to Richard Teagues’s study on planned grazing at Texas A& M which didn’t go through. Dr. Teague states that the reasons behind why scientific studies don’t back up up Savory’s results as being;
      1) Too narrow in scope
      2) Do not allow for the latitude needed for planned grazing to work.

      This second reason is very important as the grazing plan is only a starting point, and may change several times throughout the life of the plan.

      The links to Dr. Teague’s study are below.

  2. I’ve had many conversations with the research community over this issue. My concern is that by the time all other variables are held constant so that only one can be studied – the research is so artificial that it can be invalid. 5 steers on 10 acres isn’t the same as 200 pair on 200 acres grazing 3 acres per day (Wallaces Farmer Magazine October 2010.)

    Working with tens to hundreds of acre grazing systems over half of the Iowa I’ve seen intensive grazing systems in the humid midwest increase biomass production, animal numbers carried and increase profit. A systems approach is not a method used by the scientific community but it is the normal methodology for many other sciences. High Intensity grazing works.

    Here are the caveats. These systems require a very high level of management effort and commitment. They are different in the Mexican highlands, the upper midwest in the U.S. and in Wales due to vegetative, soils and weather differences. Yes those are all broad categories and that is why I contend that these systems work only with high levels of management. Those who work at the plant all week and want to manage a grazing system on the weekends are not candidates for these systems.

    The comment about livestock losing condition can be true depending on management. I was taught to call this high intensity – low frequency grazing and that is does great things for the vegetation but is hard on animals. Mob, SDG or high intensity grazing can benefit both the vegetation and the animals but there is a fine line. No grazing research is abundant and clear that no grazing can be as detrimental as overgrazing from an environmental standpoint.

    I cannot say that Mr. Savory is completely accurate but I have seen over 30 years that much of what he says can be true if the grazing systems are applied as prescribed. You cannot use a crescent wrench as a hammer or screwdriver for long with messing something up. Each of the 15 or so grazing systems are tools that are specific and must be tailored to the environment.

  3. While I cannot substantiate any of the claims attributed to Savory in this article, one thing is clear: Monbiot has very little (no?) understanding of what Holistic Management is. HM is not simply a way to graze animals. It is very much more than that. A look at the book on the topic reveals that, of its 600+ pages, a mere 23 are devoted to Holistic Grazing Planning (which, it is important to note, differs from rotational grazing in a number of ways). The rest examine what is really at the heart of HM – goal setting, decision making, and planning. Certainly not as sexy as saving the world with more cattle, but important nonetheless.

    As a practitioner of HM for more than five years, I can honestly say that HM has changed the way we farm. HM has given us a way to articulate what it is, exactly, that we want; it has given us a way to make more informed decisions when dealing with an ever-evolving system; it has allowed us to look at financial planning in a new light; and along the way, it has changed a few paradigms in our thinking. We would not be the farm (or the people, for that matter) that we are today without HM.

    I have to admit that I am a little disappointed that On Pasture would reprint Monbiot’s article here. While Monbiot criticizes Savory for being grandiose, nebulous, and perhaps a bit hollow, I would say that his article comes across the same way. I’ve come to rely on On Pasture for thought-provoking and scientifically accurate articles and feel that Monbiot’s article here does nothing to advance my knowledge of grazing. For those interested in understanding what HM really is, I encourage you to read up on the topic and not let Monbiot’s article deter you.

  4. In response to George Monbiot’s article “Eat More Meat and Save the World.”

    It’s instructive to point out the article starts out with the poisoning of the well fallacy by calling Holistic Planned Grazing “a miracle technique.” A miracle is: “an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a super natural cause.”
    In reality Holistic Planned Grazing is hardly a miracle. More accurately it’s a methodology that’s been developed over decades of trial and error and continues to be improved upon today.

    The author’s primary objective is to show there is no scientific evidence that supports Allan Savory’s methodology of Holistic Planned Grazing as being valid. So does he accomplish his goal? Let’s look at the evidence.

    1. What was the author’s methodology? He went to the library and looked for academic studies refuting the Holistic Management methodology.
    2. What was his conclusion? “Overwhelmingly” the author says Allan Savory’s statements are not supported by empirical evidence and experimental work, and his techniques do more harm than good.

    The word “overwhelmingly” means:
    “so great as to render resistance or opposition useless: an overwhelming majority.”

    It certainly sounds like the author has put the final nail in the coffin for Holistic Planned Grazing. What was the “overwhelming” i.e. majority evidence?

    In looking at the efficacy of Holistic Planned Grazing on the land the author links to TWO studies that dispute Savory’s claims. The second of the TWO articles makes a mistake in comparing rested land to grazed land because it compares traditionally grazed methodologies not Holistically grazed land therefore that point is invalid. If the land was Holistically managed and the rested land performed better then it would be valid – that was not the case.

    The third and final majority critique came from an article published on the real website. However the article was not published in a peer reviewed journal so according to the author’s own methodology it should be dismissed.

    My primary critique of this article is the contradiction in the author’s methodology. He accuses Savory of rejecting science yet only provides 2 academic references to refute Savory’s claims and calls the evidence against Savory “overwhelming.”

    The author’s dismissal of any science, studies, or test trials that are not published in academic journals is illogical when looking at the reality of the academia. The author uses the fallacy of Appeal to Authority to dismiss Savory’s research. This is quite ironic considering the overwhelming evidence the shows rampant fraud in academic journals and state funded science. To dismiss Savory’s evidence because it has not been published in circles that have been exposed as compromised does little to disprove the validity of Savory’s claims.
    Here are links to a few articles on this topic:

    My Personal aka non-scientific experience with Holistic Planned Grazing is as follows:

    I spent 5 weeks in Australia studying Holistic Management working with one of Alan Savory’s students. I lived and worked on his farm which was surrounded by farms grazing with set stocking or few paddock shifts – nothing like what Holistic Management suggests. I saw first hand the abundance of wildlife drawn to the ecosystem created at the farm I was staying at compare to the surrounding farms – which translates to more revenue in various ways, and the pastures were night and day in comparison. I was there in the middle of the hot season and while all the surrounding farms were basically dirt and stubble the farm I was on had stockpiles of grass, although it was high in fiber and low protein due to the season and dryness there was grass and a variety of native perennial grasses to boot. I attended a two-day seminar with 10 farmers from different parts of South West Australia who had transitioned from traditional grazing to Holistically Planned Grazing and all were showing improvements on their land and bottom line.

  5. Mr.Monbiot I invite you to our ranch in central Mo. 50 AU for years 3 years after initiating high density grazing ranch carries 100 AU. If you are not pleased with Mr Savories work please read Grass Productivity by Andrea’ Viosin he calls this rational grazing and in my opinion is the true father of this grazing technique.

    There are 3 ways to save this planet and it’s human population. All work to correct the carbon,the water, and the mineral cycle.
    1 Rational grazing
    2 Cover crops
    3 Biochar

  6. Cattle that grazed according to Savory’s method needed expensive supplemental feed, became stressed and fatigued, and lost enough weight to compromise the profitability of their meat. And even though Savory’s Grazing Trials took place during a period of freakishly high rainfall, with rates exceeding the average by 24 percent overall, the authors contend that Savory’s method “failed to produce the marked improvement in grass cover claimed from its application.” The authors of the overview concluded exactly what mainstream ecologists have been concluding for 40 years: “No grazing system has yet shown the capacity to overcome the long-term effects of overstocking and/or drought on vegetation productivity.”

Comments are closed.

Translate »