Election primer--ten reasons Saskatchewan's grasslands matter

Prickly Pear Cactus at Caledonia--Elmsthorpe PFRA Pasture

Less than ten days to go before Saskatchewan people head to the polls to elect their provincial government for the next four years. So far in the public campaign, at least as it appears in the media, we have heard almost nothing about Saskatchewan's environmental issues.

In particular, we are hearing little discussion of how prospective MLAs would work to protect our most endangered landscapes and their biodiversity from the market forces that threaten them--land and commodity prices driving more cultivation of native grass remnants, inadequate regulation and oversight of resource development, and public policy and market realities that do not foster good stewardship among private landowners and leaseholders on native grassland.

It must be said that the provincial NDP platform does make a clear statement about the former PFRA pastures under its agricultural section: "We will insist that the new federal government halt the process of ending the community pasture program, and collaborate with pasture patrons to more cost-effectively manage pastures that have already transitioned."

Their environmental platform also says they "will develop a Nature Index of Saskatchewan, to measure, track and publicly report on the state of Saskatchewan’s environment, modeled on the Norwegian Nature Index." They also promise to implement a comprehensive biodiversity action plan.
and "reverse the Sask. Party’s cuts to environmental protection."

sunflowers on native grassland

Meanwhile, groups like Public Pastures--Public Interest, the Community Pastures Patrons Association, and the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan have been working to get grasslands in general and the PFRA pasture issues in particular onto the agenda of political candidates. This week APAS joined with The Western Producer to host a dialogue with the incumbent minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Lyle Stewart, and representatives of the other political parties. They called it "Why Agriculture Matters." The forum went well and the Community Pastures Patrons Association of Saskatchewan asked whether the candidates' parties would be willing to consider putting $1 to 2 million into the management of the public benefits of the community pastures being transferred to Saskatchewan.

All of the candidates other than Mr. Stewart responded to the question by indicating that they would support such an investment in the wellbeing of these lands. Rick Swenson of the Progressive Conservative Party and Cathy Sproule of the NDP gave particularly strong answers in favour of some funding for the transitioned pastures.

This week Joanne Havelock, of Public Pastures--Public Interest, sent out to prospective candidates and to PPPI supporters some terrific material to use in talking to other voters or to candidates about the conservation issues around publicly-owned grasslands. You can find it all here at the PPPI website, but my favourite part is a list of Ten Reaseons Why Public Grasslands Matter. Here it is:

1. Because they are rare and threatened by cultivation and other kinds of development. 
Canada has its own threatened Amazonian forest - our native prairie. It is widely considered one of the most endangered ecosystems in Canada. Less than 20% of our native prairie remains in Saskatchewan. The rest has been turned into agricultural fields, cities and roads. Some types of native grassland, such as northern fescue, are even more diminished, to less than 10% of their original.

2. Because they support endangered species. 
Many of the federally-listed Species at Risk in Saskatchewan are found in our native grasslands. This is a direct result of the habitat loss. In Southern Saskatchewan, many of the native birds and animals require native prairie to survive - it is their only home. Over 30 Species at Risk are known to live on the Community Pastures.

3. Because they are diverse. 
While a quarter section of agricultural land may contain a few agricultural crop species, a quarter section of native prairie will support over a hundred species of grasses and wildflowers and hundreds of animal species including birds, insects and myriad bacteria and fungi. Sadly our croplands are biological deserts bereft of almost all of their original native diversity.

4. Because they protect soil and water. 
Grasslands help mitigate climate change through carbon sequestration by the grasses and other plants. They prevent soil erosion. They also contribute to water security as healthy plants and their root systems filter and purify our water.

5. Because they sequester carbon.
Most of the carbon held in the ecosphere is found in soils. Unbroken native prairie sequesters a vast deposit of soil carbon - one of Canada’s largest carbon sinks. Most of this carbon is lost when prairie is broken. This happens because soil bacteria quickly convert the stores of soil carbon into CO2, a greenhouse gas that directly contributes to global warming. Acre for acre, prairie soils hold more carbon than boreal forest soils.

6. Because they support ranching economy and culture.
Grasslands are important to cattle ranchers and their communities as they provide land for grazing - for both domestic and wild species of animals. As publicly-owned lands, they can support smaller producers, and can demonstrate how economic, cultural and environmental objectives can be integrated.

7. Because they contain the cultural heritage of the prairie.
Many archaeological sites are still to be found on these relatively undisturbed prairie grasslands. These sites have significant cultural and heritage values for all Saskatchewan people: indigenous, settler and other newcomers.

8. Because people need native prairie places they can visit.
Saskatchewan people use these publicly-owned lands for recreational and cultural purposes. They are important to the nearby rural communities and are very important elements of Indigenous traditional culture.

9. Because all natural land has value that goes beyond economics.
Public lands are more than a commodity. While they have financial value for agriculture, they also provide important environmental, heritage, cultural, indigenous and recreational values.

10. Because we have a responsibility to the future.
These grasslands - as threatened as the Amazon rainforest - are our children’s heritage and our responsibility. Our children’s prairie heritage is under threat: the beauty of a fresh prairie morning; birds singing; wildflowers dancing in the breeze. We must ensure that our children inherit a province rich in the possibilities of our grasslands.

Hopeful news: Ottawa is listening!

Progress Community Pasture, which contains one of the last wetlands where
Whooping Cranes nested on the prairie

Tremendous good news today coming out of Ottawa. For the first time in four years, the fate of the PFRA pastures is an issue receiving serious attention in Parliament.

The Federal Standing Committee on Finance, chaired by the Hon. Wayne Easter, has released its recommendations ahead of the budget, which will be announced on March 22nd. The report, available online, contains the following recommendation:

"Recommendation 49 The federal government consider re-establishing the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Program. In this regard, the government should begin by reinstating funding for two initiatives: the publicly owned Community Pasture Program; and the Prairie Shelterbelt Program and Indian Head Tree Nursery." 

There is no indication if that recommendation will bear fruit so we will have to watch the budget next Tuesday to find out. Either way, this is an affirmation of the efforts made by private people and NGOs across Canada in recent months. Groups like Public Pastures--Public Interest, the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, the National Farmers' Union, Nature Canada, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Nature Saskatchewan, the Alberta Wilderness Association and so many others have been raising the issue at every opportunity.

Since mid-February, hundreds of people have sent letters to the Federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, to the Minister of Climate Change and Environment, and to the Prime Minister himself. If you were one of them, thank you for helping. Today's news is proof that your letter struck a chord.

Not quite a moment to celebrate, but perhaps time to say a prayer to the better angels of democracy and good government. Our public grasslands, the rare creatures who depend upon them, and the men and women who manage the grazing, deserve Canada's support. To do otherwise would be to leave some of the nation's most endangered landscapes and ecosystems without any programming to protect them from the vagaries of the marketplace and conserve their rich legacy for generations to come.

Western Meadowlark, by Hamilton Greenwood

Letters: ask Ottawa to review the decision to dump the PFRA

image courtesy of Hamilton Greenwood

If you care about our native grasslands, send a letter to the Hon. Lawrence MacAulay, the federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada . . .

Greater Sage-grouse image courtesy of Dennis Evans

We believe there is a possibility that the new federal government may consider reviewing the Harper decision to dump the PFRA pastures system. However, for that to happen, our elected MPs, and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada in particular, must hear about it from concerned citizens.

So we are asking everyone to send letters to the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, as well as the Hon. Ralph Goodale and the Prime Minister as soon as possible (see addresses below).

We have a brief window of opportunity to convey our deep concerns over the demise of the PFRA Pastures in Saskatchewan and to ask for the federal government to halt the transfer of the pasture lands and conduct a full review of the Harper government’s decision.

Your letters need not be long and detailed. A simple approach is to ask the federal government to halt the transfer of these pastures to the province of Saskatchewan which is not recognizing, managing or investing in the value of public goods on these vanishing grasslands.

We believe that it important to emphasize the climate change benefits of native grassland but you should use your own words and choose any of the points listed below stating why these grasslands are important to you (e.g. climate change mitigation, conservation, Species at Risk, hunting, etc.) Tell them you want to live in a Canada that protects endangered landscapes and sustainable agriculture initiatives like the PFRA system always did.

We would also like people to request a full Strategic Environmental Assessment of the risks to the natural and human heritage in the PFRA Pastures, in accordance with The Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals.

It is very important that you include your full name and address, even if you are sending an email. Politicians always note the location where correspondence comes from. Be sure to request a reply to your letter.

Below are some points you may wish to reference in your letter. Select two or three. Use your own words.

- The Community Pasture lands are not “just agricultural lands.”

- These pastures contain the largest and best managed grasslands in Saskatchewan.

- Some 80% of our natural landscape in southern Saskatchewan has been lost to development.

- These pastures are part of Canada's commitment to its 2020 Biodiversity Goals, in accordance with the Global Aichi Biodiversity Targets.

- Prairie grasslands are vital elements of the public trust every bit as precious as our northern forests and lakes.

- The prairies have more Species at Risk than any other region of Canada.

- Over 30 Species At Risk are found on the pastures.

- Carbon sequestration is an important benefit of native grasslands.

- Soil and water conservation is provided by the pastures.

- Pastures contain many heritage sites from indigenous people and homesteaders.

- Pastures provide important hunting opportunities, generating $70 million annually.

- Keeping the pastures publicly owned is the best way to protect the many benefits they provide.

- Indigenous rights to access the land based on international declarations would be harmed by privatization of the land.

- Producers should not be expected to pay for managing the land for public benefits.

- The many public benefits should be maintained and enhanced with public dollars.

- The Canadian people’s 75 year investment in the Community Pastures could be lost by eliminating the federal support for Community Pastures.

Address your letters to:

The Hon. Lawrence MacAulay, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
lawrence.macaulay@parl.gc.ca

Send copies to the PM and Ministers listed:

The Hon. Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
Catherine.McKenna@parl.gc.ca

The Hon. Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and, MP for Regina-Wascana
ralph.goodale@parl.gc.ca

The Hon. Carolyn Bennett, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs
carolyn.bennett@parl.gc.ca

The Right Hon. Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada
justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca


If you send your letter by regular mail, all mailing addresses are: House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont. K1A 0A6
No postage is required on any mail addressed to the House of Commons.

Many thanks, for your support. We believe we have a chance to make a difference with this letter campaign. Your letters are very important and could help turn the tide.

For more information:
Public Pastures – Public Interest
E-mail: public4pastures@gmail.com, Phone: 306-515-0460 Website: http://pfrapastureposts.wordpress.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PublicPasturesPublicInterest

Crown lands and the spirit of the treaties

this piece of Crown land has been sold and is slated for development

Christmas Bird Count, late December.

We stop the car beside a piece of Crown land southeast of Regina Beach, a 160 acre parcel that the Saskatchewan government has recently sold. It is pasture land so I step out of the car and over the fence to have a look and see if it is native grass. The withered stalks and seed heads poking through the thin cover of snow look native to me but in winter it can be tough to identify grassland plants so I snip a few samples and carry them home to figure them out. Later, and with the help of a botanist friend, I name them, all natives: Slender wheatgrass, June Grass, Gumweed, Long-fruited anenome, and prairie coneflower.

The pasture is not in perfect condition. There are some non-natives too, but even the best grasslands have a few weeds these days. As we drive on we watch a sharp-tailed grouse perched on the fence. A herd of 14 mule deer move from one aspen bluff to the next through thickets of snowberry and wild rose.

Mule Deer on the property, image courtesy of Ed Rodger

A friend who lives in the area told me a few weeks ago that the quarter section—once leased Crown land and now in private hands—is going to be developed, subdivided, and sold as acreage or resort property. There is another quarter section of Crown land south of it—mostly native grass and bush as well—that was once protected by the Wildlife Habitat Protection Act (WHPA). It has not been sold yet, but may well go private soon because it appears to no longer be protected by WHPA designation.

When the numbered treaties were signed in this part of the world, back in the 1870s, there were roughly sixty million acres of native grassland south of the forest in what we now call Saskatchewan. Those who signed the treaties, agreeing to share the wealth of the prairie with newcomers, were assured that they and their descendents would always be able to hunt and gather medicines and move through the prairie. No one mentioned that the land would soon be plowed, turned upside down and cut up into parcels for the exclusive use of settlers.

Today we estimate we have somewhere near ten million acres^[1] of native grassland left in mostly small pieces in various states of health. That means we are down to less than 20% of our natural cover south of the forest. A report soon to be released by the World Wildlife Fund shows that Saskatchewan continues to lose native grasslands and wetlands at an alarming rate—in some areas as much as 13% a year, the worst of any state or province on the northern Great Plains.

A little less than half of our remaining natural prairie land is owned privately. Approximately 5.9 million acres are leased to private ranchers. Land owners and leaseholders of “Crown agricultural lands” have the legal right to deny access to anyone, including indigenous people.

image of warrant courtesy of APN News

Last month, in response to charges that his government is bullying indigenous hunters (news story here; Doug Cuthand’s excellent column on the topic here), our premier made this point in the Globe and Mail and on CBC, saying "Whether you have a treaty card or not, you still need the permission of the landowner to hunt on private property."  

What Premier Wall did not say was that indigenous people south of the forest have very few places off-reserve where they can go to hunt and engage in cultural practices.

In fact, his government is actively making sure that there will be less Crown land when they are done with Saskatchewan. The Sask Party has a stated policy of privatizing Crown lands. Lyle Stewart, the Minister of Agriculture has repeatedly said that the government does not need to own land, which for his ministry is Crown lands south of the forest.

From November 2008 to December 2014, the Sask Party sold a half million acres of land that used to belong to all of us, indigenous and non-indigenous alike.

In 2012, when Stephen Harper cut the federal PFRA pasture system and transferred 1.7 million acres back to Saskatchewan, the Sask Party said they would either sell or lease the Crown land to the cattle producers who graze it. That process shifting these endangered landscapes to private leaseholding management is about half way through the transition, but in effect it removes many of the last and best places for indigenous people to access Crown land.

Then, in spring of 2014 the Saskatchewan government proudly announced that they were ranking the WHPA lands for ecological value and may eventually be selling as much as 1.8 million acres of former WHPA lands.

After that, last fall, Lyle Stewart announced that Saskatchewan Agriculture would begin selling another 600,000 acres of Crown land—this time at a 15% discount. Leaseholders who do not purchase will find their rental rates climb by 15 and then 30% within two years. 

With Crown land now up for discount sale and the community pastures being leased to private grazing businesses, there are fewer and fewer places where indigenous people are free to hunt or gather medicines. As for asking permission, many farmers and ranchers restrict hunting on the land they manage or own and some may be particularly unwilling to grant permission to Metis or First Nations hunters.

There may be enough latitude under the treaties and in our court system’s interpretation of their language for provincial governments to get away with this kind of erosion of indigenous rights to access the land, but Canada has signed international agreements that refer specifically to the rights of indigenous people in this regard.

For example, we signed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states clearly in Article 26:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.

2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired. 3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.

In addition, Target 12 in Canada’s 2020 Biodiversity Goals and Targets state that “customary use by Aboriginal peoples of biological resources is maintained, compatible with their conservation and sustainable use.”

Are these documents and the treaties themselves merely words or do they actually mean we have a responsibility to ensure that indigenous people have access to more than the small scraps of land they own on reserves and gain through treaty land entitlement?  

The spirit under which the treaties were signed would suggest otherwise; that we share, as indigenous and settler peoples, a sacred obligation to conserve public lands so that our descendents will have wild prairie places where we can walk and know the old ways of grass and meadowlark song.

The Saskatchewan Party is not just selling land; it is violating the very spirit of the treaties that make us who we are and form the foundation of our social contract as prairie people.

[1] These estimates and calculations are based on data that appear in the Native Plant Society of Saskatchewan’s report, “Saskatchewan’s Native Prairie:  Taking Stock of a Vanishing Ecosystem and Dwindling Resource” available at http://www.npss.sk.ca/docs/2_pdf/NPSS_SKNativePrairie-TakingStock.pdf

another shot of the Crown land near Regina Beach that was sold

North Dakota study shows wind turbines in native grassland to be bad for birds

Jill Shaffer of the U.S. Geological Survey authored the longest-ever study of the effect of wind turbines on prairie grasslands birds

While we wait with fingers crossed for Saskatchewan Environment Minister Herb Cox to release his decision on the Chaplin Wind Energy project (see other Grass Notes stories here), the case against installing wind energy projects on native grassland is gaining ground.

From Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment's web page on the Chaplin Project

A study released last summer by the United States Geological Survey makes it clear that installing wind turbines in native grassland is bad for the birds--not because birds may fly into the turning blades, but because by avoiding the disturbed areas--roads, gravel pads, the massive turbines--grassland birds are displaced and lose their critical breeding habitat.

Here is a report in the Bismarck Tribune, which describes the study as the longest of its kind. Beginning in 2003, the research compares grassland bird data on three sites of native grassland before and after the installation of wind turbines.

Looking at nine species of birds the researchers found that "seven of [them], including the meadowlark and the bobolink, were displaced from good breeding habitat for the study’s duration."

“New wind energy in prime wildlife habitat can influence the distribution of grassland birds for years after construction, including species whose populations are in serious decline,” the report concludes.

this image from the Bismarck Tribune shows one of the three study areas

Thanks to Candace Savage, author of Geography of Blood and Prairie: A Natural History, for alerting me to this report. 

Kevin Van Tighem, well known Alberta conservationist and author, posted this comment online in reference to the study:

"In southern Alberta wind projects have been located too often in large tracts of fescue grassland. The result is to fragment previously continuous habitat, eliminate aerial singers like Sprague's pipit and horned lark, and displace species like long-billed curlew and upland sandpiper that need large tracts of intact prairie. Wind can be green energy, but not when projects are put on the last good tracts of healthy prairie."

Saskatchewan can learn from the mistakes made in North Dakota and Alberta (and on our own native grasslands in the Missouri Coteau) by making sure that from now on, SaskPower and the provincial government will not support or approve wind energy projects on native grassland.

Cattle and the Fate of the Earth, Part II

In last week's post on how livestock grazing will destroy or save the earth, I took a look at the widely ranging field of opinion on climate change and domestic grazing--from the selective truths of Cowspiracy to Tim Flannery to George Monbiot, Hunter Lovins, and Alan Savory.

I ended that post with a promise to provide a bit more insight on Savory's system, which we will get to in short order.

But I want to apologize off the top to anyone who is looking for an unqualified endorsement of Holistic Management (HM). You won't find it here. But neither will you find an out of hand dismissal of it as a viable method of managing grassland. From what I have read on the topic, any management system--continuous, all-season grazing, short-duration intensive grazing, or other forms of rest-rotation--can, in the right hands and with the right stocking rates for the site, produce good results for both beef production and ecological conservation values.

As for the larger claims made by Savory and HM enthusiasts, I am going to lean a little to the skeptic's side of the fence. I am neither a grassland biologist nor a range ecologist nor a rancher. Though I do share some native prairie that we let the neighbour's cattle graze from time to time, I cannot claim any personal experience or knowledge of grazing systems.

I took this photo in the ditch just outside the fence where the cattle in the top photo were grazing--there were lots of lady slippers outside the fence but none inside. Grazing is an important element of grassland management, but there are species that do not do well under intense grazing pressure.

So why am I skeptical of Savory's claims? First, because it just sounds too good to be true and that always makes me suspicious. I can readily believe that in the right landscape with the right soil and climate, a skillful and hard-working grass manager may well increase her production by using HM methods. But I have trouble believing that any system--especially one that has never been proven by independent studies to work on a wide range of grassland eco-types--will sequester as much carbon, and improve water infiltration as Savory claims it will in his Ted talk.

Second, I worry because I do not hear many HM enthusiasts distinguishing between native and non-native grasslands--a vital distinction from a biodiversity conservation perspective. And I worry about people using HM on native grasslands, especially in areas where the land is not terribly productive or resilient.

HM and other methods of "mob grazing" or "short duration grazing," may well be effective for restoring cropland to perennial grasses--if you have the right watering infrastructure and enough labour and skill to make it work the way Neil Dennis has in Saskatchewan. But I have yet to hear of any reports showing that it improves the range condition or biodiversity of native prairie. Until we see at least one independent, peer-reviewed study showing increased biodiversity on native range, increased carbon retention, and improved range condition, I am not sure why we should get enthusiastic about the Savory method and its offspring.

Finally, I am skeptical because people I respect are skeptical. Chris Helzer, whose Prairie Ecologist blog is always even-handed and fair, had this to say about HM and Savory.

Closer to home, I asked Sue Michalsky, Eastend rancher with an MSc in range management, and a director of Ranchers Stewardship Alliance Inc. (RSAI), what she thought of Holistic Management. Here is her response:

"There are several peer-reviewed studies, including a Canadian study with Darcy Henderson as one of the authors, that demonstrate no benefits to biodiversity, carbon storage or even grass productivity associated with high intensity, short duration grazing. To my knowledge (and I watch for these), there are zero peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate a benefit to any of these factors from the use of high intensity, short duration grazing. Despite this lack of evidence, there is an ever-increasing number of people including ranchers, agrologists and environmentalists who are believers. 

What is strange is that the holistic followers view it as a panacea. That is unusual among livestock producers and agrologists. Some of my peers think that holistic grazing may be having a positive effect in severely overgrazed, tame grasslands further south where winter dormancy is not such a huge issue. But not for the reasons that Savory and HMI advertise. Simply because a very short grazing period gives grass a long period of rest that it never had before and tame grasses have been bred to grow aggressively given the opportunity.

The rational viewpoint is that grazing can be good or bad for native grasslands, as can fire. Most of the RSAI ranchers run moderate stocking rates and may rotate pastures, but usually in a low intensity situation. In wet years, they utilize less of the production than they could get away with which likely means that some carbon is sequestered in those years. In successive dry years they may utilize more grass than what is produced, also using stockpiled grass from previous years. However, it is likely that carbon is NOT sequestered in these years and may even be released as root systems die back. There is some research supporting the variability of carbon sequestration on native grasslands and I think it is by Dr. Ed Bork from U of A. 

Historically speaking, it is obvious that grazing and carbon sequestration are not mutually exclusive or grasslands in the northern great plains would not have been able to sequester such huge carbon stores in only a few thousand years. However, the bison did not graze every acre every year. I believe every 8 to 32 years was the estimate for the northern mixed grassland. In addition, it is fallacy that the bison mob grazed. There is a Nature Conservancy (TNC) study (unpublished) that looks at explorer records and aboriginal knowledge to get a handle on this. In most cases, the bison roamed locally in small family units of 20 to 50 head. They did not migrate, but they did move in large numbers away from drought and harsh winters. And possibly away from disturbances such as lots of homesteaders. Under historic conditions, high intensity, short duration grazing rarely occurred. And under those conditions, grasslands stressed by drought or winterkill of grasses did not get grazed, thereby reducing the chances that soil-stored carbon would be released.

I am not saying there are no positive effects from grazing. There are. Grazing stimulates grasses to increase primary production in the same way that exercise builds human muscle and makes us healthier....to a point. In both cases there is a point beyond which the stress produces negative results. There are many studies that demonstrate increased production under grazing - an S curve model - and even some long term studies which demonstrate that production and therefore economics are better under moderate grazing than either heavy or light grazing / non-use. Moderate grazing stimulates the presence of forbs in a grassland when the climax condition is a few species of old growth grass. Many grassland wildlife species including insects respond positively to moderately grazed habitat.

To make sense of when grazing is good or bad, one need only go back to the range management basics: timing, intensity and duration. Timing in the northern great plains where winter dormancy is an overriding factor means 'at what point during the growing season'. The benefits of deferred grazing are well established. The rule of thumb is that for every day you defer grazing in the spring, you gain 2 - 3 days of grazing in fall or winter. Duration (the length of time) and intensity (the number of animal units per area) are interdependent. This is where Savory is right. He teaches that what is most important is the rest interval. In the northern mixed-grass, there are two relevant measurements. Jim Romo has some research that shows native grasses in SK need more than 400 days of rest to fully recover their root systems from a grazing event. SK Ag keeps referencing some research that I have been meaning to track down that says 'between 50 and 70% of leaf material must be left behind to continue plant growth on native grasslands'. 

In the end, Alan Savory may not be wrong in what he preaches, but preaching is different from practice. The problem is that it is a delicate balancing act to ensure that native rangelands have sufficient rest and recovery before another grazing event and most livestock producers do not have the flexibility or the intricate knowledge required to ensure only ever positive results."

birds like this LeConte's Sparrow need moist tall grasses and sedges. They would not be able to nest in an area levelled by "mob grazing." 

After last week's post many people contacted me with comments on Savory, grazing management and carbon sequestration. One reader recommended a web page and new book on carbon farming--which you can find right here.

Another reader used this web site on grass-fed beef to make the excellent point that if we would keep our livestock out of feedlots and on grass, the results would be better for storing carbon and protecting water.

Thanks to those who wrote in with their thoughts. This is an important discussion if we are going to find ways to make animal agriculture work in a carbon-conscious world where biodiversity and source water protection are public goods that we must all share responsibility for.

Cattle and the Fate of the Earth, Part I

Depending on who you listen to, livestock are either destroying the planet or saving it. 

For those who argue that livestock are a dead loss to the planet, the primary source of data has always been the 2006 United Nations Food and Agriculture Association report called "Livestock's Long Shadow," which, among other things, blames cattle production for a high proportion of the planet's greenhouse emissions. 

That single document has cast its own long shadow on every subsequent discussion of whether the world would be better off without ruminant livestock. 

from the Cowspiracy website

Then along came Cowspiracy, a popular documentary that stepped up the anti-livestock argument with Indiegogo crowd-funding, a Michael Moore-style narrative, and an all or nothing conclusion that promotes veganism as not merely an environmentally-sustainable lifestyle, but a panacea for our ailing planet.

                                      

Cowspiracy, now on Netflix, claims to have used the best science available--or at least the best science supporting their black and white thinking. We can assume that one piece of research they gave a miss was this study published in Nature conducted by a group of scientists working at 40 sites on six continents, including the University of Guelph's Andrew MacDougall. 

The study showed clearly that grassland biodiversity depends upon grazing. In all of the study sites around the world – from the Serengeti to small grasslands in eastern North America -- plant diversity proved to be higher where herbivores, wild or domestic, were able to graze normally.

They also did not check with Tim Flannery, scientist, author of The Weather Makers, and chief commissioner of the Australian Climate Change Commission, who is on record saying that livestock grazing today is a sustainable use of grassland: "If we get the stocking levels right, we get the management techniques right and the management of water and of biodiversity right, I think we can have a very sustainable system of livestock management."

Allan Savory on TED

Meanwhile, early in 2013, holistic grazing guru Allan Savory gave a controversial Ted talk with more than three million views online in which he describes his own panacea for the climate's woes--more grazing. But not just any kind of grazing. Savory is famous for promoting his “holistic range management” brand of grassland management, in which densely packed groups of livestock graze an area for a short duration and then are moved to let it recover—a practice that many livestock producers are adapting under the name “mob grazing.”

In August 2014, however, British pundit and environmentalist George Monbiot, interviewed Savory and dismissed his theories in an article in The Guardian.

Shortly after that, Colorado sustainability promoter Hunter Lovins shot back with her own Guardian op-ed in defence of Savory and “holistic range management”.

OK—let’s stop right there. Following this debate over the past decade has given me a bad case of tennis-spectator neck.

All of the experts make compelling arguments. Even the Cowspiracy film makers have their charm and some of what they say about feedlot agriculture is undeniably true. But they did not look at the wider ecological issues for natural grasslands that scientists and writers like Flannery have explained vis a vis the role livestock plays in replacing absent native grazing animals.

And, as much as I agree with Allan Savory that grazing livestock is an important way for us to restore carbon to our grassland soils, I am not entirely convinced that his system of intensive grazing works everywhere. I may not like the way Monbiot cherry-picks in his critique and dismisses Savory as a quack, but I agree with him on several points about the problems with Savory’s grazing theories. But then I read Hunter Lovins’ defence of Savory and am confused all over again.

That was when I decided to abandon the experts from far away and look for a local one. In part II of “Cattle and the Fate of the Earth”, I ask Saskatchewan rancher, conservationist, and biologist Sue Mihalsky for her thoughts on Savory and his holistic range management system.