LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION AND REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE

INTRODUCTION

Throughout this report, I will refer to livestock grazing and production. The inclusion of production is critical because many livestock operations’ impacts involve more than cattle grazing grasslands. For instance, predator control is one consequence of livestock production, as is the production of forage crops such as alfalfa, which does not directly affect grasslands.

Plus food choices influence global GHG emissions.

Numerous new approaches to agriculture have claimed to improve soils, store soil carbon, and produce healthy food. There are undoubtedly better and worse ways to produce agricultural products. However, since agriculture is one of humankind’s most destructive land uses, we must critically review these impacts and reduce agriculture’s global footprint where possible. Since most agricultural production supports livestock in one way or another, a review of livestock’s global impacts is necessary.

OVERVIEWS OF LIVESTOCK IMPACTS

There have been some excellent reviews of livestock impacts.

Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West (Wuerthner and Matteson 2002) has numerous chapters addressing many aspects of livestock production ecological impacts in the arid West.

 A classic paper is Thomas Fleischner’s Ecological Costs of Livestock Grazing in North America (Fleischner 1994).

Another is Freilich et al.(2003) Ecological Effects of Ranching: A Six-Point Critique.

A critical review of Allan Savory Claims by John Carter et al. (2014) is useful.

More recently, a review of global impacts is Livestock’s Long Shadow, which asserts that livestock production is the leading cause of biodiversity loss (FAO 2006).

In 2019 the U.N. updated the earlier report with the IPBES (2019): Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. The review finds that Agriculture, particularly livestock grazing, is the single greatest impact on global biodiversity and contributes significant amounts of CO2 to GHG emissions. 

Quoting from the report, “Over one-third of the world’s land surface and nearly three-quarters of available freshwater resources are devoted to crop or livestock production {2.1.11}. Crop production occurs on some 12 percent of total ice-free land. Grazing occurs on about 25 percent of total ice-free lands and approximately 70 percent of drylands {2.1.11}. Approximately 25 percent of the globe’s greenhouse gas emissions come from land clearing, crop production, and fertilization, with animal-based food contributing 75 percent of that.”

The key findings of the report include:

Livestock production (grazing and feedstock) is the single largest driver of global habitat loss.

Grazing areas for cattle account for about 25% of the world’s ice-free land.

Animal agriculture contributes at least 18% to global greenhouse gas emissions.

Livestock production uses a large portion of freshwater resources.

One-third of the world’s crops are used as feed for livestock production.

Animal-based foods, especially beef, require more water and energy than plant-based foods. This production of crops for animal feed means more greenhouse-gas emissions.

The meat and dairy industries use 83% of farmland but contribute only 18% of food calories.

Farmed animals now account for over 90% of all large land animals.

Producing protein via farmed animals is a very wasteful use of resources. It can take from 10kg to 100kg of plant foods to produce just 1kg of animal products.

The demand for grain-fed meat is one of the main drivers of global biodiversity loss.

Within the United States, livestock production is a significant land use  has been identified as contributing to these ecological losses and habitat degradation.[JM1] [G2] 

KEY IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION (NOT JUST GRAZING) UPON THE LAND.

1. Forage competition—the majority of forage is consumed by livestock, leaving little residual cover or food for native wildlife (Schieltz and Rubenstein. 2016).  

2. Livestock compact and trample soils reducing infiltration, creating higher run-off, more flooding and erosion (Kauffman B. and W. C. Krueger. 1984 , Belsky, J.A et al. 1999).  

3. Livestock are the major source of non-point water pollution in the West (FAO 2006).

4. Livestock destroy soil biocrusts that bind soils and captures free nitrogen making it available to plant growth, soil crusts and inhibit weed establishment (Zaady E., Eldridge D.J., Bowker M.A. (2016).

5. Livestock are among the chief sources of weed dispersal. Also, the trampling of plants, as well as cropping of desirable plants give weedy species a competitive advantage (Hogan J. P., Phillips C. J. C. (2011).

6. Most of the West’s water is diverted for livestock forage production (i.e. hay). In Montana 97% of all water removed from streams is used by agriculture (M.R. Cannon and Dave R. Johnson 2000).

7. Livestock can socially displace native species.  Elk and other species have been shown to avoid areas actively being grazed by domestic animals (Clegg, Kenneth. 1994).

8. Livestock transmit disease to native, i.e. as in bighorn sheep (Pils and Wilder 2018).

9. Predator and pest control such as the killing of wolves and prairie dogs greatly reduces ecological integrity of the landscape (Ripple and Beschta 2012).     

 

10. Trampling of riparian areas negatively affects 75-80% of the West’s wildlife species (Kauffman B. and W. C. Krueger 1984).

11. Plant community conversion—grazing can lead to the eventual transformation of a plant community (F. Amiri, Ali Ariapour and S. Fadai ).

12. Livestock has led to the spread of cheat grass—a highly flammable annual grass that increased fire frequency, negatively impacting native grasses and shrubs (Belsky, A.J., and J. L. Gelbard, 2000).  

13. Livestock interrupts nutrients cycles (Fleischner 1994)        

   

14. Livestock degrades the aesthetics of the landscape.  

15. Forage production and livestock grazing off and on public lands affects native plant communities. There are 1.9 billion acres in the United States outside of Alaska. Agriculture, particularly, livestock production affects more than half of that acreage. There are 408 million acres of agricultural land were in cropland—much of it forage crops feed to livestock–614 million acres were in pasture and range, 127 million acres were in grazed forestland (Cynthia Nickerson and Allison Borchers 2012).

16. Livestock affects many smaller native species that are seldom on the radar screen of most citizens from snails to frogs (Wuerthner and Matteson 2002).  

17. Livestock production is responsible for more endangered species than other land use in the West (Flather et al. 1994).    

18. Fences, water development, and other developments used to maintain livestock operations have negative impacts on native species. Fences can block wildlife migration or fence posts may provide perches for birds of prey to attack sage grouse (Jakesa et al. 2018). 

19. Getting at the true costs of livestock production is nearly impossible. The real ecological costs are uncountable, and even the public taxpayer costs are obscured (Wuerthner and Matteson 2002).  [JM3] [G4] 

Livestock production is a major human endeavor that has significant adverse effects on land, water, and wildlife. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Livestock production has been identified as the single biggest factor in species endangerment and a significant impact on biodiversity (Jones 2002, Noss and Cooperrider 1994, Wilcove 1998).

For example, In the United States, grazing has contributed to the demise of 26 percent of federal threatened and endangered species—more than equal to logging (12 percent) and mining (11 percent) combined (Flather et al. 1994).

Livestock grazing is especially harmful to plant species, affecting 33 percent of endangered plants (Wilcove 1998).

For example, in Welfare Ranching, 159 species listed or candidates for listing under the ESA are impacted by livestock production (Wuerthner and Matteson 2002).

WATER USE

 If you were to include irrigation withdrawals and water developments, many of which only exist to store water for irrigating livestock forage crops like hay and alfalfa (Reisner and Bates 1990, Minckley and Deacon 1991, Richter et al. 2020), then the impacts on endangered species are more significant.

Livestock forage production is the largest consumer of western water and the principal justification for dams that block fish migration and change water flows (Richter 2020). Also, there is groundwater pumping that reduces the flow of springs and seepage. For instance, numerous mollusk and amphibian species are endangered due to the reduction in the flow of springs and loss of wet meadows (Freist 2002 and Engle 2002).

For instance, Richter et al. 2020 found: “We estimate that 60 fish species in the western U.S. are at elevated risk of imperilment or extinction due to flow depletion and that 53 (88%) of these are primarily due to irrigation of cattle-feed crops.”

See the following graphic, which shows that even in California, with the largest human population and urban domestic water use in the West, as well as the “breadbasket” of the United States, water for irrigated pasture and alfalfa are still the biggest consumers of water (Hanson 2020).

 Worldwide livestock production utilizes 1/3 of the world’s land area, and 75% of its freshwater. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/

VEGETATION IMPACTS

Livestock can significantly influence vegetation (Anderson, J.E., and R. S. Inouye, 2001).

 By cropping before seeds are set, grazing can reduce the recruitment of preferred forage. Cropping is always damaging to vegetation since the plant requires leaves to photosynthesize. When livestock consumes the leaves, the plant says May Day, and translocate carbohydrates from roots to produce new leaf material (Belsky 1993).  If there is a short period of recovery, the plant can die. In some grasses, full recovery may take a decade (Anderson 1991).

Of course, since the plant is now producing more leaves, the above-ground biomass’s overall annual production is increased. Livestock proponents suggest that this indicates that livestock grazing has a positive influence on vegetation. However, this increase comes at the expense of root development, and when the plant is stressed by drought or competition with other plants for nutrients, the cropped plant is at a disadvantage and can die (Belsky 1993).

Using above ground biomass production as an indicator of livestock’s positive influence is like suggesting that coyotes “benefit” from trapping and shooting because it results in more pup production.

Cropping is not the only impact on vegetation. Livestock can trample and break vegetation. Trampling can increase bare dirt and weed invasion (IF. Amiri, Ali Ariapour, and S. Fadai 2008).

Heavy “hoof action,” as advocated by Allan Savory and others, can also compact soils, reducing water infiltration, causing desertification (Warren et al. 1986).  I will address Savory claims in more detail later.

Also, cattle are one of the major impacts on riparian areas, those green strips of vegetation found along streams. Riparian areas are critical to 70-80% of the West’s wildlife and function to slow erosion and as a sponge reducing flooding (A. J. Belsky, A. Matzke, and S. Uselman, 1999). Grazing by cattle has led to a decline in fisheries as well as changes in seasonal flows (Kauffman, B. et al. 1983)

Livestock removal has often led to remarkable recovery of damaged riparian areas (Dobkin, Rich, and Pyle, 1998).

PREDATORS

Most livestock producers seek to reduce or eliminate native predators like cougar, coyote, bears, and wolves. This control is often done with taxpayer funding by the euphemistically named Wildlife Services.  

Yet the actual impact on livestock operations is relatively small. For instance, livestock killed by wolves cost producers approximately $11,076.49 per year between 1987 and 2003 in the Pacific Northwest. Each year such costs accounted for b0.01% of the annual gross income from livestock operations in the region ( Muhly and Musiani. 2009).

Indeed, according to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), in 2011, domestic dogs killed more livestock annually than wolves, cougars, or bears. ( A good overview is found here  https://wildearthguardians.org/historical-archive/livestock-losses/  )

Despite the relatively small impact on livestock production, predator control is the primary source of mortality for these species (Treves, A. et al. 2019).

Beyond the direct killing by the livestock industry and its government allies, the presence of domestic livestock can socially displace native herbivores that predators depend upon for prey (Stewart et al. 2002). For instance, in one Utah study, elk and deer densities declined by as much as 92% in response to the introduction of livestock. In contrast, associated areas where livestock were absent did not show this response (Clegg 1992).

WILDFIRE

Livestock grazing can influence wildfires in two ways. Severe grazing can reduce fuels that would allow fires to spread. Alternatively, and far more critical these days, livestock grazing is one factor in the spread of cheatgrass, an annual exotic, that is extremely flammable (Williamson, Matt. A. et al. 2019, Belsky, A.J. and J. L. Gelbard, 2000).

Therefore, cheatgrass has increased fire frequency in sagebrush ecosystems, causing complete type conversion of sagebrush steppe in many areas (Reisner Michael D. et al. 2013).

The factors that favor cheatgrass spread, including livestock grazing. Selective grazing of preferred perennial grasses reduces their competitive abilities, permitting cheatgrass colonization. Besides, biological soil crusts (BSC) found in the interspaces between bunchgrasses inhibits cheatgrass establishment. Cattle trample these BSC ( Root, Miller, and Rosentreter. 2019).

Maintaining healthy stands of perennial grasses has been shown to inhibit cheatgrass spread (Strand et al. 2017).

Although grazing is often trumpeted as a means of reducing fuels (Bailey, Derek W., et al. 2019) and thus wildfire, especially by “targeted” grazing and fuel reductions. (Diamond, Joel, Christopher A. Call and Nora Devoe 2009)The claims must be scrutinized closely.

For instance, a study done in Arizona concluded (with modeling) that light utilization (26%) in treated sites, the BehavePlus fire model predicted that herding and supplement reduced fire rate of spread by more than 60% in grass communities and by more than 50% in grass/shrub communities (R.A. Bruegger et al. 2016).

However, the authors go one to conclude: “Although it is a promising tool for altering fire behavior, targeted grazing will be most effective in grass communities under moderate weather conditions.” The weather factors are significant because nearly all massive wildfires burn under “extreme fire weather conditions.” Under such conditions, targeted grazing, as well as fuel breaks, fail to contain or stop fires (Bruegger et al., 2016).

Another study that looked at fuel breaks created by targeted grazing and other measures like bulldozing native vegetation cautioned that the “cure might be worse than the disease” since the destruction of soil biological crusts and loss of native grasses that occur with targeted grazing, bulldozing. Other fuel reductions create the disturbance habitat that favors the spread of cheatgrass.

The authors cautioned: “these projects could also add thousands of kilometers of new fuel breaks to the region over the next decade or two, directly altering hundreds of thousands of hectares through habitat conversion, and indirectly affecting sagebrush plant and animal communities through the creation of new edge effects and habitat fragmentation” (Shinneman et al. 2018).

None of the studies that promote grazing to reduce fuels considers the unavoidable ecological impacts that accompany grazing. These include water pollution, soil compaction, trampling of biological soil crusts, the spread of weeds (as with cheatgrass), the social displacement of wildlife (like elk), and the loss of forage wildlife and insects, and costs.

 Furthermore, the probability that any area “treated” by targeted grazing and other fuel reductions will encounter a blaze when fuel removal is effective is extremely small (Rhodes and Baker 2008). Thus, targeted grazing and further fuel reductions, which have their own set of impacts, occur now, potentially reducing a fire that may or may not come in the future.

IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE

Livestock has many adverse effects on wildlife, including aquatic species, due to a number of factors:  disease transmission, forage competition, and social displacement, livestock use of habitat that leaves less territory for native species, and management actions (pest control) done to promote livestock at the expense of native species and infrastructure (fences) detrimental to wildlife.

Whenever livestock advocates suggest that livestock benefits wildlife, one needs to ask—which wildlife and under what conditions. In most cases, the species “helped” by the presence of livestock are common or may not be beneficial to other species. For instance, cowbirds increase with livestock. However, cowbirds are nest parasites that remove native bird eggs from nests and replace them with their own, which the unsuspecting birds raise.

Disease

Bighorn sheep are one native species that have suffered substantial population declines throughout their range due to pneumonia received from domestic sheep. Brucellosis, a disease that can cause abortion in cattle, is now found widely in elk. Chronic wasting disease (CWD), which causes deterioration in the brain similar to Mad Cow Disease, originated in domestic sheep. CWD is now widespread in deer and elk around the West.

Forage Competition

Domestic animals consume the majority of all palatable vegetation on private and public lands. When wolves were introduced into Yellowstone National Park, some 90% of the forage on public lands in the surrounding ecosystem (no livestock are permitted in Yellowstone Park) was allotted to domestic livestock, and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem has the greatest concentration of native herbivores left in the country. Similar disparities in forage allotment exist on nearly all public lands, leaving less for native wildlife from elk to grasshoppers. This has impacts up the food chain. Grasshoppers, for example, are fed upon by birds, rodents, and fish. Fewer grasshoppers mean less feed for all these other species (Schieltz and Rubenstein. 2016).  

Habitat Use

Water in many springs and streams are diverted into ponds, troughs, and pipelines to distribute water to livestock. However, in removing water from these natural systems, many other water-dependent species are harmed. For example, native land snails depend heavily on springs for habitat, and when a spring is diverted into a cattle trough, snail habitat is decreased. Similarly, when water is diverted from a stream for irrigation or to provide water to livestock, it means less habitat in the stream for aquatic insects, fish, and wildlife dependent on those species like swallows (insects), bald eagles (fish), and otter (fish).

Management Actions Detrimental to Wildlife Designed to Promote Livestock

I previously mentioned predator control and its impact on native predators, but there are many other species that are killed to promote livestock operations. Prairie dogs are keystone species that support many other wildlife species, but they are regularly poisoned since ranchers see them as competition for livestock forage. Similarly, grasshoppers are regularly poisoned because they eat grass, which ranchers believe should be appropriated for livestock (Miller et al. 1990). The loss of prairie dogs, ground squirrels, grasshoppers, and other native species has negative consequences up the food chain since so many different species consume them or depend on the habitat they create for their survival (Miller et al. 2000).[JM5] 

Infrastructure Detrimental to Wildlife

Fences are ubiquitous in livestock operations. Fences pose barriers to wildlife migration and can ensnare animals that get tangled in the wires (Jakesa, A., et al. 2018). Other wildlife like sage grouse suffer from collisions with fences, and in some studies, as high as 29% of mortalities are associated with fence collisions. Fence posts also create perches for avian predators that fed upon sage grouse (Mead 2009).[JM6] 

Water troughs and ponds created for livestock are also create breeding habitat for the mosquitoes that carry West Nile Virus. The virus has been shown to infect sage grouse (Walker et al 2007). [JM7] 

ARE CATTLE JUST DUMB BISON?

One common argument for livestock grazing is the idea that since bison, elk, and other herbivores once dominated western rangelands, replacement by domestic livestock is merely switching animals.

There several problems with this argument.

The first is that much of the arid West, including most of the Great Basin, the deserts of southern California, Arizona, and New Mexico, not to mention the Palouse Prairie of eastern Washington, never had large herds of grazing animals (Bailey 2016). Bison did not exist in these areas during historical times (Mack and Thompson 1981).

In addition, the dominance by one animal like cattle is an entirely different influence than the “grazing suite” that existed before the colonization of the West by domestic livestock. Under natural conditions, animals as different as bison to grasshoppers cropped vegetation, each selecting different plant species and consuming them at different times. All of this reduces the impact on any particulate plant species.

Another problem with the “replacement of bison” with livestock is that under natural conditions, bison moved freely and frequently, seldom regrazing the same site for extended periods (Wuerthner, 2002).

Furthermore, native wildlife populations fluctuate with climate/weather and other factors like disease and predation. These natural processes helped keep native wildlife somewhat balanced with available forage and precluded long periods of overuse.

For more on how bison differs from domestic livestock, see Wuerthner, 2020 [JM8] [G9] https://www.thewildlifenews.com/2020/09/02/bison-ecology-ecological-influence-behavior-and-decline/.

REGENERATIVE AG CLAIMS

Regenerative agriculture is a conservation and rehabilitation approach to food and farming systems. It focuses on topsoil regeneration, increasing biodiversity,[1] improving the water cycle,[2] enhancing ecosystem services, supporting carbon sequestration, increasing resilience to climate change, and strengthening the health and vitality of farm soil.

The Regeneration International defines “Regenerative Agriculture” as farming and grazing practices that, among other benefits, reverse climate change by rebuilding soil organic matter and restoring degraded soil biodiversity – resulting in both carbon drawdown and improving the water cycle.

https://regenerationinternational.org/2017/02/24/what-is-regenerative-agriculture/

Like Allan Savory’s (Savory, A., 1983)claims that intensive grazing can restore soils, improve livestock performance and productivity and profits for the farmer, and lately solve global climate change, such claims by Regenerative Ag promoters are too good to be true. To see critiques of Savory, see Wuerthner, 2002, the Donut Diet, Carter et al. 2014, and Skovlin, Jon, 1987.

There are aspects of the process that are accurate and beneficial. Proponents of Regenerative Ag argue for more biodiversity, greater soil fertility, less soil erosion, and water infiltration with fewer fertilizers, less pesticide, fewer herbicides, less tilling, and more mixed farming.

 Increasing soil health and organic matter is generally a good thing. Carbon can be sequestered through improved Ag practices. However, like Savory, the claims that Regenerative Ag will save the world from climate change or lead to radically improved Ag practices may be more hyperbole than truth.

And like with Savory, there is no standardized method or version of what qualifies as Regenerative Ag, which makes any critique nearly impossible because the variability ultimately frustrates the ability to make definitive conclusions.

To see a famous TED talk on Regenerative Ag. Regeneration of Our Lands: A Producer’s Perspective | Gabe Brown | TEDxGrandForks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfTZ0rnowcc

As Andrew McGuire suggests, the claimed radical improvements in soil organic matter (SOM) and farm output attributed to Regenerative Ag require greater scrutiny. Most claims for extraordinary results by Regenerative Ag practices are not subject to peer review replicable studies. This lack of replication is the same problem with Allan Savory’s claims.  http://csanr.wsu.edu/regen-ag-solid-principles-extraordinary-claims/

Whether manure can sustain soils is questioned. http://csanr.wsu.edu/can-manure-sustain-soils/

Many pro-Agriculture groups argue U.S. farmers must feed the world. But such assertions ignore that all things being equal, meat, and animal products are an ecologically inefficient way to feed people. Plants capture energy from sunlight and convert it into plant materials. Consumption of plants and conversion by livestock in meat results in a tremendous loss of energy. Since meat production competes for land that might otherwise grow food for direct human consumption, including three-quarters of all agricultural land (Myers, 2014).

ALLAN SAVORY AND CLAIMS OF LIVESTOCK MIRACLES

One of the critical parts of “regenerative” Ag is the use of livestock to “restore” soils and store carbon Savory, A. and S. D. Parsons, 1980, Savory, A., 1983, Savory, A. and J. Butterfield,1999). Many of these claims can be traced back to Allan Savory and “Holistic Management” advocated by Savory as the “cure” to livestock and farming operations.

 In his most recent renditions, Savory has claimed that livestock use can store enough carbon in soils to reverse climate change (Savory, A. 2013).  It is worth reviewing his claims in some detail since, in most cases, Regenerative Ag relies on Savory’s ideas. Several critical overviews of Savory claims, including Sundt (Sundt, P. 2013) and Nordborg (Nordborg, M., 2016).

ALLAN SAVORY MYTH AND REALITY

Allan Savory advocates for the livestock management system known as Holistic Management (H.M.) (Savory, A. and S. D. Parsons, 1980; Savory, A., 1983). He is a former member of the Rhodesian Parliament (now Zimbabwe) and has made his living as a consultant with the Savory Institute. He is best known for his recent appearance as a TED speaker, where he earned some controversial statements that he has been advocating for decades and some new claims.  His most recent assertion is the idea that more livestock grazing may be the solution to global warming. Savory’s advocacy for monitoring and careful attention to livestock plant utilization is consistent with well-established range management principles.

In short, Savory’s primary theme is a variation on what has been called “short-duration grazing” or “mob grazing.”  Under such a scenario, livestock, typically cattle, are tightly herded through a confined pasture (small pastures) or rangeland. The animals cannot be selective in their choice of food. Then the livestock are moved rapidly on to the next grazing area. The previously grazed area is rested from livestock for an extended period so that the plants can recover and regrow.

However, many of his observations about animal behavior, plant ecology, evolutionary history, and carbon storage are well outside the accepted scientific consensus. And these ideas can lead to damaged ecosystems. In the case of his thoughts about livestock and global warming, it may be counterproductive, leading to more significant GHG emissions if implemented according to his ideas. 

 As with everything in science, there are few absolutes. There is a significant variation in land productivity, climate, and the experience of ranchers and farmers who are managing livestock that can affect outcomes. One may experience or hear about examples where Savory’s prescriptions appear to be valid, but they are merely isolated exceptions, as we assert below. Exceptions do not invalidate the rule. 

The few scientific experiments that Savory supporters cite as a vindication of his methods (out of dozens that refute his assertions) often fail to test his theories. Several of the studies cited on the H.M. web site had utilization levels (degree of vegetation removed) well below Savory’s level.

The following are among Savory’s most debatable ideas that most scientists and observers believe are contrary to standard rational understanding and observation.

MYTH: Livestock grazing can reduce Green House Gases and reduce global warming.

REALITY:  One of Savory (Savory 2013) most recent claims is that grazing will stimulate the translocation of carbon from the atmosphere to the roots of plants, thus increasing domestic livestock numbers and grazing, Savory asserts, will significantly reduce global GHGs. While it is true that significant amounts of carbon are stored in the soils of rangelands, the ability to capture and transfer additional atmosphere carbon to grassland soils is minimal. Most arid grasslands have low productivity, thus low capacity to store new sources of carbon (Briske, D. et al. 2013).

Furthermore, a full GHG accounting would demonstrate that domestic livestock is among the largest global GHG source. Methane emissions from domestic livestock, particularly cattle, are a potent contributor to GHG (FAO 2006; Goodland, R Anhang, J (2009) ). [JM10] [G11] Livestock also emits nitrous oxide that is even more potent as a greenhouse gas. Together, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization considers these emissions responsible for 18% of global GHG emissions (FAO 2006).

 Even worse for global efforts to reduce global atmospheric carbon is the fact that much of the livestock pasture around the world has been created and continues to be made by the destruction of forests. Forest destruction results in the release of even more carbon into the atmosphere. The replacement of forests with grass pasture thus increases overall carbon emissions (Goodland, R. Anhang, J.2009). [JM12] [G13] 

 According to a recent review utilizing this full accounting system by World Watch has concluded that livestock production may be responsible for as much as 51% of all global GHG (Goodland, R. Anhang, J. 2009). Thus, a reduction of domestic livestock numbers would go much further towards reducing global atmospheric carbon than any small amount of carbon, which might be sequestrated due to growth from grasses related to livestock grazing.

MYTH:  Holistic Management is superior to other grazing management strategies.

Reality: Compared with other grazing methods, H.M. methods are not superior if EQUAL attention to forage utilization and timing is followed. In some cases, H.M. has resulted in poorer condition livestock and damage to land resources (Skovlin, Jon. 1987; Holechek, Jerry, et al. 2000).[JM14] [G15] 

The qualifier attention to forage utilization and timing is essential because much of the success reported for H.M. has to do with a significant change in livestock producer effort and capital investment in more range developments like watering troughs and fencing.  These factors, along with intensive monitoring, resulted in better animal distribution.

These results are often compared to past lackluster management, whereby livestock were left to forage with little supervision. This frequently resulted in overgrazing in some areas, while other parts of the pasture, ranch, or farm were barely utilized.

However, it is important to note, efficient cropping of forage by H.M. methods is not necessarily an improvement for wildlife and plants since, for many species, the lightly grazed areas on the ranch or farm were places where nature found refugia and suitable habitat. Many beneficial insects, pollinators, and larger wildlife such as birds benefit from the lightly grazed areas and can be critical for ecosystem functioning.

MYTH: Savory’s intensive grazing management strategies have led to greater livestock production and economic gains for ranchers and are a panacea for declining ranch/farm bottom line.

REALITY:  Many ranchers cannot or are not able to adopt Savory’s intensive grazing management. First, the intensive management required by H.M. methods to be successful often requires significant investment in fencing, water development, and other infrastructure. It also requires diligent attention to livestock grazing effects and movement. This kind of attention is often difficult for ranchers and farmers to implement due to economic and/or human constraints. Other limitations to the success of H.M. techniques are climate and terrain. H.M. works best in flat terrain where livestock impacts can be distributed equally and where adequate moisture exists for plant regrowth[JM16] .

MYTH: Most rangelands suffer from “overrest,” not overgrazing.

REALTY: Overgrazing is the cumulative effect of multiple cropping of plants that leads to a decline in plant energy reserves, reduction in root mass, seed production/reproductive effort, and is often accompanied by soil erosion and overall changes in plant composition on a site. In the absence of livestock grazing, plants recover energy reserves, seed, and reproductive effort typically improve, and soil erosion is reduced (Anderson 1991).[JM17]  There are no documented examples of “overrest” any more than forests are “decadent” because they are “old growth.”

MYTH: In the absence of livestock grazing, plants become moribund and die.

REALITY: There is ample evidence that plants do not require livestock grazing to remain viable. First, there are few places on Earth where plants are not “grazed” or “browsed” by natural herbivores, including larger native mammals like bison, wildebeest, or guanaco to small animals like ground squirrels and grasshoppers. So plants do not “need” livestock to thrive and on public lands where we can and should promote native herbivores over exotic domestic livestock. 

Secondly, one can easily refuse this statement by visiting many natural areas that lack livestock and have thriving grassland/rangeland ecosystems. Most National Parks do not permit livestock grazing. And there are tens of thousands of small and large grass-covered landscapes that, for one reason or another, naturally exclude livestock like isolated buttes, cliffs, gorges, mesas, plateaus, and even rail and highway right of ways.[JM18] [G19]   Most of these areas are “grazed” by native herbivores from grasshoppers to elk, and demonstrate that plants do not require livestock to be “healthy.”

MYTH: Hoof action increases water infiltration and helps to plant seeds.

REALITY: Nearly all studies (dozens or hundreds) [JM20] that have reviewed the effect of hooves on soil infiltration have shown that a thousand-pound cow compacts soil, diminishing the space between soil particles and reducing water penetration and increasing water runoff (Belsky, J.A., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman, 1999; Kauffman B. and W. C. Krueger. 1984; Kauffman, B., W. C. Krueger, and M. Vavra 1983; Dormaar, Johan F., Smoliak, S. & Walter D. Willms, 1989)

Seeds do not require hoof action to germinate (Lowry).  Plants [JM21] [G22] in rangelands have many different adaptations to ensure adequate recruitment without “hoof action.” Some sources are attractive to seed-eating species like birds, voles, even ants that carry seeds to their burrows or new locations and help distribute and plant the seeds.  Other plants have particular adaptations like needle grass, which “drills” itself into the ground to ensure successful germination.

MYTH: Biocrusts capping soil surface inhibits plant growth, preventing seeds from penetrating the soil and water from soaking into the ground. Biocrusts need to be broken up by hoof action.

REALITY:  Biocrusts are common throughout grassland ecosystems around the world.

They are particularly common in arid landscapes where they play a critical role in ecosystem health and function. Biocrusts cover the soil between the spaces in bunchgrass communities (bunchgrasses are common in arid landscapes), keep other plants from germinating, and competing for nutrients and water. Biocrusts can decrease the germination of large-seeded annual grasses that are degrading grasslands and increasing fire frequency in grasslands and steppe habitats. By inhibiting annual grasses, biocrusts help the perennial grass species thrive[JM23]  (Max Mallen-Cooper et al. 2018).

MYTH: Livestock, particularly cattle, can be managed to emulate native species that may no longer graze grasslands.

REALITY:  The notion that livestock can replace or emulate the native grazers that may have inhabited a region before conversion to domestication is erroneous.  Nearly all plant communities have multiple herbivores that chomp, chew, and graze upon their leaves, stems, and even roots.  This includes everything from nematodes in the soil that “graze” on roots to grasshoppers, ground squirrels, birds like geese to larger mammals like deer, elk, and bison. However, funneling above-ground biomass (leaves, stems, etc.) into a single animal like a cow simplifies the ecosystem’s energy flow. It can also result in uneven herbivory on plants since the natural collection of animals all graze different plants, different parts of plants, at other times and seasons, then the single herbivore effects of one or two kinds of domestic animals[JM24]  (Bell 1971).

MYTH: Domestic animals like cattle are merely replacing herds of native species like bison that roamed grasslands.

REALITY: There are substantial evolutionary differences between domestic animals like cattle and native species like bison. Bison naturally move more frequently than cattle. They are better at defending themselves against native predators. They can exist on lower-quality forage than cattle.

Furthermore, most of the American West did not have large grazing herds of bison and/or other large mammals. For instance, bison were mostly absent or found in very small numbers west of the Continental Divide. Most of the Great Basin of Nevada, western Utah, southern Idaho, southeast Oregon historically did not have large herds of grazing animals[JM25]  (Bailey 2016). 

MYTH: Domestic animals like cattle merely replaced extinct native herbivores that once roamed the western United States.

REALITY:  Sometimes, Savory advocates admit that historically large herds of bison, elk, and other grazing mammals were absent from much of the West. But they argue that cattle are merely replacing Ice Age herbivores like giant sloth and ancient bison that are now extinct. But this ignores the fact that grasslands have not remained static since the last Ice Age. Indeed, in the absence of large herbivores,  western grasslands have changed in response to changing climate and changing evolutionary pressures. The lack of large grazing mammals permitted plants with a low tolerance for grazing pressure to occupy much of the arid West. These plants invested energy in developing extensive root systems and other mechanisms to survive in arid environments but have few adaptations that permit them to survive grazing by large mammals.  

MYTH: Plants need to be grazed and benefit from grazing. 

REALITY: Savory mixed up compensation with need and an economic value with a biological one. The grazing of a plant harms the plant, especially if the cropping occurs during the growing season. Plants can compensate for this loss but often do so at a cost to their overall fitness. Grazing the top of a grass means that the plant’s bottom or root will compensate for this loss, but only with a loss in root mass and carbon reserves, weakening the plant that now needs rest from grazing.

The loss of photosynthetic material (leaves) by grazing causes a plant to respond by translocation of energy from roots or other parts of the plant to build new leaf material—assuming sufficient moisture, nutrients, and other critical elements to recover from the grazing event.

Thus, cropping may result in greater overall biomass production as plants seek to compensate for their leaf material loss. However, the production of more above-ground biomass is often done at the expense of other essential plant functions, including a reduction in root growth, loss of reproductive effort (the plants expends energy on leaf production instead of seed production) so forth. It is hardly a “benefit.”

To characterize compensation from a harmful event as a need is analogous to suggesting that coyotes’ shooting and poisoning is a “benefit” to coyotes because they compensate for these losses by producing additional pups.

SOIL CARBON AND LIVESTOCK

Rangelands make up a large proportion of the Earth’s surface, and the soils hold a significant amount of sequestered carbon. Rangelands are estimated to contain more than one-third of the world’s above and below ground carbon reserves (Ingram L.J. et al. 2008).  Therefore, there is interest in determining the potential for soil carbon sequestration in rangeland soils, and whether livestock grazing helps or hinders this sequestration. Allan Savory has generated a significant amount of response based upon his TED talk where he claimed that increasing livestock grazing could reverse climate change (Savory, A. 2013) https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_fight_desertification_and_reverse_climate_change/transcript?language=en

The potential for sequestering more carbon varies tremendously; however, based upon a number of factors including existing carbon storage (there is a finite amount of carbon that soils can hold before they are “saturated”), plant productivity, grazing management, and climate.

Annual rates of soil organic carbon (SOC) accumulation decline as the soil approaches equilibrium (Nordborg, 2016). Sometimes overly optimistic predictions result when SOC accumulations increase in the early years after a change in grazing management, but these increases cannot be extrapolated indefinitely (Powlson et al. 2014). 

The issue of whether livestock grazing can sequester carbon in soils has gotten greater attention in recent years due to climate change issues (Beschta, R.,  D. L. Donahue, A. DellaSala et al. .2012), 

Some proponents of livestock grazing assert that grazing can lead to the sequestering of significant amounts of carbon in soils and reduce GHG emissions (Savory, A. 2013).

In the most optimistic claims, some, like Allan Savory, suggest that livestock grazing can reduce carbon to pre-Industrial levels. In particular, Savory’s (Savory, A. and J. Butterfield,1999) unverified claims have generated a number of responses that dispute his assertions (Carter, J. et al. 2014, Briske, D. et al. 2014).

While there may be circumstances under which grazing could increase carbon in the soil, most rangeland soils have a limited ability to store additional carbon, and under most conditions’ livestock grazing will reduce carbon storage rather than increase it.

Efforts to maintain and increase carbon storage in rangelands should focus on reducing livestock grazing in areas where it ecologically inappropriate and causing degradation. Those promoting the climate benefits of livestock grazing must account for effects beyond soil carbon. Livestock are significant sources of methane emissions, so increased methane emissions likely offset any speculative benefits from increased soil carbon storage.

There is a tremendous amount of carbon tied up in agricultural soils. The amount of carbon bound up in soils is approximately three times the amount of C found in above-ground biomass. The argument goes that a small increase in soil carbon pools could have a significant impact on the reduction of global GHG emissions.

The fundamental way that carbon is sequestered in the soil is by plant growth, primarily through roots, in the Earth, along with micro bacteria, soil microbes, and other soil life that can live on plant material.

Given the existing condition of many rangelands, the biggest concern is maintaining current carbon and avoiding losses through soil erosion, degradation of plant productivity, and other changes that lead to soil carbon losses. In other words, the best way to reduce CO2 emissions from rangelands globally is to reduce rangeland degradation. Since livestock grazing is frequently the primary source of rangeland degradation, a reduction in grazing pressure can potentially preserve more soil carbon in many ecosystems.

The idea that “hoof action” as prescribed by Allan Savory will increase water infiltration and carbon in soil has been challenged. When comparing land that was not grazed with the land managed using a short rotational grazing system (which is very similar to Holistic Management in its ideas), water infiltration was significantly reduced (Belsky, J.A et al. 1999). The hoof action did not improve the incorporation of litter into the soil (Dormaar et al. 1989, Holechek et al. 2000).  

While increasing soil carbon storage may be theoretically possible in some circumstances, soil’s ability to absorb carbon is limited. Many ecosystems are at or near equilibrium and cannot store additional carbon. To bind more carbon in the soil requires a continuous input of new organic matter. The soils with the best opportunities for extra carbon storage have been depleted by overgrazing and ecosystem degradation. Still, these landscapes frequently require a long period to recover. They are also the most difficult to recover (Sommer R. and D Brossio. 2014).

This gets into the time factor regarding global GHG emissions. Reducing emissions is more important now than in future decades. Due to the slow accumulation rate of carbon in soils, even if certain grazing practices could enhance carbon storage in some situations, the process may not help reduce global CO2 levels in a reasonable time frame.

 By contrast, methane emissions from livestock are a significant contributor to GHG warming now, and these emissions are one of the easiest (relatively speaking) human anthropogenic sources of CO2 equivalents to reduce. 

LIVESTOCK AS A SOURCE OF METHANE[JM26] 

Livestock are among the largest sources of global anthropogenic methane. Depending on which study is used, anywhere from 14-51% of the global GHG emissions in CO2 equivalences are due to livestock production (U.N. Livestock’s Long Shadow (Steinfeld, H.  et al. 2006) or Climate Change and Livestock (Goodland, R Anhang, J, 2009). The U.S. EPA assigns one-third of anthropogenic methane emissions to livestock production—ahead of natural gas and petroleum systems as a source (Myers 2014).

 Even if livestock grazing could generate some carbon sequestration over the long term (and as we shall see below, this is not a proven given), the presence of livestock emissions occurring in the interim would still be a significant problem. One would have to balance any carbon sequestration against methane emissions to see if livestock grazing were a net benefit.

A study in China found that the uptake of CH4 (methane) by grassland soils only offset 3.1-8.6% of methane emissions from grazing sheep (Wang, x. et al. 2015). This suggests that even if livestock grazing could promote methane sequestration, it would not be significant to outweigh the emissions resulting from livestock digestion[JM27] [G28] [G29] .

One problem to keep in mind is that methane is 84 to 86 times more effective than CO2 in trapping heat during the first 20 years after its release into the atmosphere (IPCC, Fifth Report, 2013.) (Over a 100-year time scale, methane breaks down into CO2; the IPCC currently considers methane to be approximately 28 to 34 times more effective than CO2 in trapping heat over the 100-year time scale.) Since reducing global heating is a priority now, not 100 years from now, the more effective heat-trapping properties of methane in the first decade or two after emission make it especially dangerous.

VARIATION IN CARBON STORAGE

When viewing the contribution that livestock grazing may make to carbon sequestration, a few other considerations must be part of an informed decision.

The first is that there is tremendous variation in reported soil carbon storage due to variation in ecosystems, grazing methods and management, the soil profile and depth analyzed, study duration, grass type, and precipitation. Accounting for this variation is context-based and makes comparative statements difficult (Mcsheery M. and Mark Richie. 2013).

GRAZING INFLUENCES ON SOIL CARBON STORAGE

Grazing can affect carbon storage losses by shifting plant species dominance in some communities. Ecosystems, where heavy grazing by native ungulates was historically common (like the Great Plains), soil carbon sequestration is facilitated by a shift in plant species.

For example, a long-term study of the Northern Great Plains in North Dakota found that moderate grazing resulted in 17% less soil carbon sequestered than in ungrazed exclosures; however, heavy grazing resulted in a shift towards blue grama, a grazing tolerant species with shallow, but dense roots. The dominance by blue grama resulted in sequestered soil carbon levels like those found in the ungrazed exclosure (Frank, A.B. et al. 1995). However, this increase in soil carbon due to heavy grazing of blue grama occurred only in the shallowest soil layers where it is more vulnerable to loss. 

A similar situation was found in a study of alpine meadows in China, where medium to heavy grazing increased soil carbon in the topsoil layers due to a shift in plant species to grasses tolerant of heavy grazing. These grasses have dense roots, increasing soil organic carbon (Gao. Y.H. et al. 2007).

Even where a shift in plant species dominance may appear to improve soil carbon storage potential, there is a significant variation in sequestration rates due to the influence of other climate variables, such as drought and increased soil temperature. 

A study in a mixed-grass ecosystem on the Great Plains found that heavy grazing (50 percent utilization) over ten years resulted in a 30% loss in soil organic carbon (SOC). This resulted from shifting plant dominance from mixed prairie grasses to blue grama, which tolerates heavy grazing. Blue grama has dense but shallow roots; thus, SOC accumulates closer to the surface, where it is more easily lost (LeCain et al. 2004).

 Under drought conditions, gradually increasing soil temperatures, and heavy grazing, the blue grama root system could not retain carbon accumulated under the previous decade’s wetter, cooler-soil conditions. (Interestingly, this study also documented that there was little change in SOC in the no grazing and light grazing [10 percent utilization] treatment areas over this same dry, warmer-soil period. It also documented that increases in total nitrogen accumulated in the no grazing and light grazing treatments over this period while nitrogen stores declined in the heavy grazing treatments (Ingram, LJ. Et al. 2008).

Climatic influences are more likely to affect shallow SOC deposits like those found in blue grama grasslands. For instance, another study on the Great Plains found that carbon storage by cool-season grasses improved in a wet year, and there was greater carbon storage in an exclosure. In contrast, the following year, a grazed pasture dominated by blue grama had a higher CO2 exchange rate (LeCain et al. 2004 ). 

This variability in results also points out the danger of short term studies that are the most common in the research world. Depending on the year’s climatic conditions, the measurements recorded can significantly influence the findings and conclusions.

Many of the studies of soil carbon storage have been done in ecosystems where there was significant evolutionary grazing influence from native species such as bison like on the Great Plains, which may bias conclusions. In these areas, plants exist that have developed a tolerance for heavy grazing. In contrast, in areas where native grazers were less abundant (like the Great Basin and many desert areas), plants’ ability to adapt to livestock grazing appears to be less resilient. However, there have far fewer studies conducted grazing influence on soil carbon in these ecosystems.

Livestock grazing is the primary factor in tipping some ecosystems over ecological thresholds such as the Great Basin’s rangelands. For instance, exotic, shallow-rooted cheatgrass has replaced deep-rooted native bunchgrasses and shrubs on some western rangelands. Cheatgrass sequesters very little carbon and increases the SOC rate of turnover (Meyers, S. 2011).  

As the author notes, “The elimination of perennial understory vegetation and cryptobiotic crusts is a nearly inevitable consequence of livestock grazing in deserts. This opens these systems to annual grass invasion, subsequent burning, and loss of a major carbon sink, a heavy price to pay for the minimal economic gains derived from direct use of these intrinsically unproductive lands for livestock production”(  Meyers, S. 2011).

Changing disturbance intensity (grazing) in an ecosystem with low disturbance regimes can lead to a cascade of events. One study found that photosynthesis decreased after a shift to high disturbance, followed by a decline in root biomass and a change in plant community structure 1.5 months later. Those changes led to a decrease of soil fungi, a proliferation of Gram(+) bacteria, and accelerated decomposition of old particulate organic C (<6 months). At last, accelerated decay released plant-available nitrogen and decreased soil C storage. The results indicate that intensified grazing triggers the proliferation of Gram(+) bacteria and subsequent faster decomposition by reducing roots adapted to low disturbance (Klumpp, K., Fontaine, S., Attard, E., Le Roux, X., Gleixner, G. and Soussana, J.-F. (2009).

A study in China found that grazing exclusion resulted in greater above-ground biomass, root biomass, and plant litter than grazed grasslands (Wang, x. et al. 2015). Grazing exclusion significantly increased C and N stored in plant biomass and litter and increased the concentrations and stocks of C and N in soils. Furthermore, these differences were accentuated the more extended grazing was excluded with the highest C and N stocks in a 17-year grazer excluded grassland (Qiu, L. et al.  2013).

In another study in China, variation in precipitation had a more significant effect on carbon uptake and release. The ungrazed plots had less variation, and the authors concluded that ungrazed lands might have more resistance to changing climate (Shao, C. et al. 2013).

A third study in China’s Inner Mongolia found the standing dead plant. Litter carbon (C) decreased significantly in light grazing conditions (when compared to a non-grazed exclosure that had been fenced for 26 years). Still, light grazing did not significantly affect live plant C, total above-ground plant C, total root C (0–60 cm), and soil C (at 0-100-cm depths). Heavy grazing extensively reduced carbon in three pools, total above-ground plant C, subsoil C (at 60–100 cm), and total soil C (at 0–100 cm), but did not affect topsoil C (at 0–60 cm). The lack of an effect on topsoil C can be explained by a slight increase in root C (0–60 cm) and a higher root ratio to vegetation C in the heavy grazing site. The decrease in subsoil C under heavy grazing is attributable to the organic carbon decomposition due to increased root C as a new carbon source. Total ecosystem C decreased from 150.62 Mg C/ha in the N.X. site to 143.78 Mg C/ha in the L.G. site (a 4.5% decrease) and to 122.43 Mg C/ha in the H.G. site, an 18.7% decrease (Fang Fei, Chang Rui-ying1, Tang Hai-ping 2014).

Similarly, in a fourth study of the Loess Plateau in China, a twenty-year exclusion of livestock grazing significantly increased above and below-ground biomass, species richness, cover, and height for five different communities. The authors concluded that “long-term exclusion of livestock grazing can significantly improve typical steppe properties in the Loess Plateau (Cheng, J. et al. 2011).

The point of all conflicting results is that one cannot generalize and always assume that grazing will increase soil carbon stocks. Clearly, in many areas, grazing exclusion is the best way to store and even increase soil carbon.

Briske and colleagues question how much carbon can be sequestered in rangelands in general, due to the low productivity of rangelands ecosystems. As they note, rangelands are known to be very weak sinks for atmospheric C because plant production in water-limited, and more C is often released into the atmosphere from soil respiration than is taken up by vegetation, especially during drought periods (Briske, D. et al. 2013).

A further complicating matter is how vegetation affects soil carbon storage. For instance, under heavy grazing in the Great Plains, blue grama, a sod-forming grass very resistant to grazing, tends to increase. Blue grama roots are denser and found in shallower soil profiles than other grasses. Hence, the dominant species and the depth of soil profiles can affect soil carbon measurements. Heavy grazing may increase soil carbon in the Great Plains by favoring blue grama but at the expense of a greater diversity of deep-rooted grasses (Ingram L.J. et al. 2008).

Another problem is that even if livestock grazing could enhance carbon sequestration, it would take a long time to implement on a large landscape scale, and there are also limits to how much carbon soils can absorb (Sommer R. and D Brossio. 2014).

CAUTIONARY REMARKS

Beyond the methane production from livestock, one must also look at the collateral damage from livestock grazing. Livestock production does not occur in isolation. Cattle, in particular, produce a large amount of manure that is a major source of water pollution. Cattle destroy biocrusts, particularly in arid ecosystems, fostering the spread of weeds and exotic plants like cheatgrass. Cattle trample riparian areas in arid ecosystems that are critical habitats for 70-80% of all wildlife. Cattle hooves compact soils, reducing the infiltration of water. In most of the world, protecting livestock from predators is one of the primary factors contributing to many predator species’ decline and endangerment. 

The growing of forage for livestock is a significant reason tropical forests are cleared (for hay and soy production), resulting in a sequent loss of carbon to the atmosphere. It is also the reason for much of the destruction of native vegetation in places like the Midwest of the U.S., where livestock forage crops like corn and soy dominate. Since much of the hay/alfalfa grown in the arid West requires irrigation, impounding rivers with dams is another consequence of livestock production (Wuerthner G. and M. Matteson eds. 2002).

Grazing can also alter plant communities, with ecological consequences not only for livestock production but also wildlife. For instance, a heavily grazed shortgrass steppe in Colorado shifted from mixed prairie with cool-season plants to a plant community dominated by the warm season grass blue grama. This shift in plant species reduces the available forage earlier in the season, which can affect livestock productivity, but which also has obvious impacts on native wildlife that may depend on early green-up of cool-season grasses (LeCain et al. 2004).  

In yet another study in New Mexico, grazing shifted grasslands to mesquite. The deep-rooted mesquite had far more carbon storage than the grasslands.  However, many ecologists see the shift to mesquite as a degraded ecosystem (Bird, S.B. et al. 2002).

Exclosures tended to have a more diverse flora, including more forbs (flowers) and cool-season grasses. In particular, the presence of forbs may be necessary to pollinating insects like butterflies and flies, and the effects on total biodiversity should be considered, not just whether there are greater soil carbon accumulations (Reeder, J.D. and G.E. Schuman. 2001).

Thus, focusing on carbon storage without considering other ecosystem values may be counterproductive. 

GRASS-FED BEEF

Grass-fed beef is not a panacea either, as grass is nutritionally inferior and requires greater transit time in the cow’s rumen, resulting in anywhere from 2-4 times as much methane production.  For instance, one study reported a 48% increase in methane production by cows feeding on natural grasslands (Grobler, S.M. et al. 2014).  In another study comparing CAFO farmed animals with natural pasture feed cattle, the grass-fed beef had significantly greater methane emissions (Pelletier, N. et al. 2010).

Furthermore, any increase in cattle production (as advocated by Allan Savory and others) would likely come at the expense of forests, since most new livestock pasturage is carved from forested landscapes. (Most natural grasslands are already under livestock production and have little space available for increasing animal numbers.)

Since forests capture and store far more carbon than any grassland pastures that replace them, expanding livestock production would likely result in a net loss in carbon storage.

In their assessment of the full life cycle estimate of GHG emissions attributable to livestock (which includes collateral impacts like forest clearing), Goodland and Anhang suggest that nearly 51% of the annual worldwide anthropogenic GHG emissions are attributable to livestock (Goodland and Anhang, 2009).

A reduction in livestock numbers and production would permit the reforestation of millions of acres of land cleared for livestock pasture. This would effectively store far more carbon than livestock grazing could achieve through any stimulation of plant production and SOC storage (Goodland, Robert. January 2014).

A review by Capper (2012) concluded that: “Conventional beef production (finished in feedlots with growth-enhancing technology) required the fewest animals, and least land, water and fossil fuels to produce a set quantity of beef. The carbon footprint of conventional beef production was lower than that of either natural (feedlot finished with no growth-enhancing technology) or grass-fed (forage-fed, no growth-enhancing technology) systems.”

SUMMARY

There is no clear evidence that livestock grazing can significantly enhance soil carbon stores. Conflicting evidence exists that demonstrates greater carbon storage with no grazing, while in other ecosystems, grazing may enhance soil carbon. But there are many cautionary remarks on how to measure and interpret findings. Climatic conditions year to year, for instance, can shift carbon storage in grazed areas from a positive to a negative.

Furthermore, any storage is gradual and takes years to accumulate, while carbon uptake by soils is finite and slows over time. And compared to almost all other ecosystems, arid rangelands are among the least productive ecosystems—hence have little potential for soil carbon storage compared to different ecosystems like forests.

Because of this time factor and the need to reduce CO2 levels now, the use of rangelands as a carbon sink—even if it were proven effective—is a flawed strategy for a host of reasons. One cannot look at the soil carbon storage issue out of context.

Livestock are among the most significant source of GHG emissions now—and reducing livestock numbers is the quickest and perhaps the most effective means of significantly altering GHG emissions (Ripple, W. et al. 2014).  Furthermore, there are a host of collateral damages created by livestock production, from the destruction of soil biocrusts, killing of predators, water pollution, clearing of forests for pasture, etc. One cannot look at the carbon-livestock-soil issue in isolation. Taken as a whole, the production of livestock has many significant ecological impacts, not the least of which is its contribution to global GHG emissions.

HARM CAUSED BY REGENERATIVE OPERATIONS

The question of harm is debatable. Regenerative Agriculture may be better than traditional agriculture, which is a relative comparison. All agriculture is destructive of natural landscapes and species. All agriculture aims to focus on solar energy (by photosynthesis) into one or a few species of plants and/or animals.

This contrasts with natural landscapes, which host hundreds to thousands of native species of bacteria, fungi, flowering plants, shrubs, trees, insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, not to mention natural processes like wildfire, drought, and so on.

One of the issues with Regenerative Ag assertions of greater biodiversity is that proponents fail to understand how conservation biologists measure biodiversity. Having more species growing on any land is not an accurate measure of biodiversity if all species are exotic, non-native plants or animals.

Most Ag systems rely on domesticated plants and animals. Just because you have five different crops grown does not mean you have increased biodiversity. The accurate measure of biodiversity is NATIVE species’ occurrence, in something approaching “NATURAL” numbers and distribution.

The differences can be huge. For instance, native oak trees host over 500 species of native butterflies and months alone. These insects support native birds (Tallamy D. 2007). 

But a typical farm crop like corn or wheat hosts only a few insects.

In most cases, to the degree that native species utilize domestic species, it is primary by accident.

IS REGENERATIVE AG SCALEABLE?

One of the problems for regenerative agriculture is that it usually requires more labor, more monitoring, more capital investments, and intensive manipulation.

For instance, using Savory’s Holistic Management as an example (Savory, A. and J. Butterfield,1999), to implement the high stocking rates and rapid herd movement advocated requires more fencing, more water developments, and frequent monitoring by the producer to ensure the animals are removed in a timely fashion. All of this costs more, and in the end, it may not pay. Plus, such herding is only practical on more or less flat terrain and does not work well where there is significant topographical relief. 

While there are many who advocate for grass-fed beef over factory farming, there are costs to both. Grass is difficult to digest, so cattle feeding on grass requires more time to attain slaughter weights, thereby emitting more GHGs.

Nearly all pastureland in the eastern US has been carved from forests. An increase in grass-fed livestock would require significant deforestation. Forests store far more carbon than grasslands, resulting in a net loss of stored carbon. Photo George Wuerthner

Also, a fully grass-fed livestock industry would require significant increases in pastures. Since nearly all of the natural grasslands are already fully utilized by livestock, this increase in pasture lands could only be accomplished by converting forests into grasslands. Since forests store far more carbon than grasslands, such a conversion would only lead to more significant CO2 emissions. 

In summary, there is no panacea. Changing some farming practices towards regenerative Ag would likely be an improvement. However, the reliance on livestock as a critical component of regenerative farm operations diminishes its value.

REFERENCES:

Anderson, J.E. and R. S. Inouye, 2001. “Landscape-scale changes in plant species abundance and biodiversity of a sagebrush steppe over 45 years,” Ecological Monographs, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 531–556,

Anderson, Loren. 1991. Bluebunch wheatgrass defoliation effects and vigor recovery. BLM State Office, TECHNICAL BULLETIN 91-2

Amiri, IF, Ali Ariapour and S. Fadai. 2008. Effects of Livestock Grazing on Vegetation Composition and Soil Moisture Properties in Grazed and Non-Grazed Range Site. Joumal of Biological Sciences 8 (8): 1289-1297, 2008 ISSN 1727-304

Bailey, Derek W., et al., 2019. Synthesis Paper: Targeted Livestock Grazing: Prescription for Healthy Rangelands, Rangeland Ecology & Management

Bailey, James A., 2016. Historic Distribution and Abundance of Bison in the Rocky Mountains of the United States. Intermountain Journal of Sciences, Vol. X, No. X, 201X

Bell RHV (1971) A grazing ecosystem in the Serengeti. Sci Am 224:86–93

Beschta, R.L., D. L. Donahue, A. DellaSala et al., 2012 .“Adapting to climate change on western public lands: addressing the ecological effects of domestic, wild, and feral ungulates,” Environmental Management, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 474–491, 2012.

Belsky, Joy A. et al., 1993. Overcompensation by or red herring? Evolutionary Ecology, 1993, 7, 109-121

Belsky, Joy, and Dana M. Blumenthal. 1997. Effects of Livestock Grazing on Stand Dynamics and Soils in Upland Forests of the Interior West Conservation Biology, Pages 315-327 Volume 11, No. 2, April 1997

Belsky, Joy A. Allan Savory’s Holistic Management: Scientific Misinformation on Grazed Ecosystems.

Belsky, A.J., and J. L. Gelbard, 2000. Livestock Grazing and Weed Invasions in the Arid West, Oregon Natural Desert Association, Bend, Ore, USA, 2000.

Belsky, J.A., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman, 1999.  “Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States,” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 419–431, 1999

Bird, S.B. et al. 2002 Spatial heterogeneity of aggregate stability and soil carbon in semi-arid rangelands. Environmental Pollution 116 pages 445-455

Booker, Kayle et al., 2013. What can ecological science tell us about opportunities for carbon sequestration on arid rangelands in the United States? Global Environmental Change Volume 23, Issue 1, February 2013, Pages 240-251

Bradley BA, Curtis CA, Fusco EJ, Abatzoglou JT, Balch JK, Dadashi S, Tuanmu M-N. 2017. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) distribution in the intermountain Western United States and its relationship to fire frequency, seasonality, and ignitions. Biological Invasions. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1641-8

Briske, D. et al., 2013. The Savory Method cannot green deserts or reverse climate change. A response to Allan Savory’s TED video. Rangelands 35(5):72–74 doi: 10.2111/RANGELANDS-D-13-00044.1

Briske, David, Brandon T. Bestelmeyer, and Joel R. Brown. 2014. Savory’s Unsubstantiated Claims Should Not Be Confused With Multipaddock Grazing. Rangelands

Briske, David D., et al., 2013. The Savory Method Can Not Green Deserts or Reverse Climate Change. Rangelands, 35(5):72-74. 2013. http://csanr.wsu.edu/regen-ag-solid-principles-extraordinary-claims/

Briske, D. et al., 2014. The Savory Method cannot green deserts or reverse climate change. A response to Allan Savory’s TED video. Rangelands 35(5):72–74 doi: 10.2111/RANGELANDS-D-13-00044.1

Bruegger, Retta A. et al. (2016). Targeted Grazing in Southern Arizona: Using Cattle to Reduce Fine Fuel Loads Rangeland Ecology & Management Volume 69, Issue 1, January 2016, Pages 43-51

Cannon, M.R. and Dave R. Johnson. 2000. Estimated Water Use in Montana in 2000 In cooperation with the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Scientific Investigations USGS Report 2004-5223

Carter, J. et al., 2014. Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems.  International Journal of Biodiversity Volume 2014, Article ID 163431, 10 pages

Catlin, James C., John G. Carter, and Allison L. Jones. 2011.Range Management in the Face of Climate Change Natural Resources and Environmental Issues: Vol. 17, Article 24.

Chamane, Sindiso; Kevin Kirkman, Craig Morris, and Tim O’Connor.2016. Effects of Short Duration, High-Density Stocking on Soil Properties and Plant Species Composition of a Mesic Grassland in South Africa. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30717364

Cheng, J. et al. Cumulative effects of 20-year exclusion of livestock grazing on above and below-ground biomass of typical steppe communities in arid areas of the Loess Plateau, China. Plant Soil Environ. 57, 2011 (1): 40–44

Clapper, J. 2012 Is the Grass Always Greener? Comparing the Environmental Impact of Conventional, Natural and Grass-Fed Beef Production Systems. Animals 2012, 2, 127-143; doi:10.3390/ani2020127.

Clegg, Kenneth. 1994. Density and Feeding Habits of Elk and Deer in Relation to Livestock Disturbance Master of Science Utah State University.

Condon Lea and David Pyke. 2018.  Fire and Grazing Influence Site Resistance to Bromus tectorum Through Their Effects on Shrub, Bunchgrass and Biocrust Communities in the Great Basin (USA) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10021-018-0230-8

Max Mallen-Cooper et al. 2018. Livestock grazing and aridity reduce the functional diversity of biocrusts. Plant Soil (2018) 429:175–185. DOI 10.1007/s11104-017-3388-5

Denmead, Lisa H., et al., 2015. Experimental evidence that even minor livestock trampling has severe effects on land snail communities in forest remnants. Journal of Applied Ecology 2015, 52, 161–170

Diamond, Joel, Christopher A. Call, and Nora Devoe. 2009. Effects of targeted cattle grazing on fire behavior of cheatgrass-dominated rangeland in the northern Great Basin, USA International Journal of Wildland Fire 2009, 18, 944–950

Dingpeng Xionga, Peili Shia, Xianzhou Zhanga, Chris B. Zou. 2016. Effects of grazing exclusion on carbon sequestration and plant diversity in grasslands of China—A meta-analysis. Ecological Engineering 94 (2016) 647–655

 Dobkin, D.S., A. C. Rich and W. H. Pyle, 1998. “Habitat and avifaunal recovery from livestock grazing in riparian meadow system of the northwestern Great Basin,” Conservation Biology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 209–221, 1998

Dormaar, Johan F., Smoliak, S. & Walter D. Willms, 1989. Vegetation and Soil Responses to Short-Duration Grazing on Fescue Grasslands. Journal of Range Management, 42(3), pp.252–256.

Engle, Janice. 2002. Silent Springs: Threats to Frog Habitat from Livestock Production. Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West. Island Press. Washington DC.

Fang Fei, Chang Rui-ying1, Tang Hai-ping. 2014. Effects of Grazing on Carbon Sequestration in Temperate Grassland, Inner Mongolia of North China  Vegetos- An International Journal of Plant Research Volume: 27, Issue : 3 pgs. 126-134.

Fernandez, D.P, J.C. Neff, R.L. 2008. Reynolds Biogeochemical and ecological impacts of livestock grazing in semi-arid southeastern Utah, USA. Journal of Arid Environments 72 (2008) 777–791

Flather, C.H. L.A. Joyce and C.A. Bloomgarden. 1994.Species Endangerment Patterns in the United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-241. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Fleischner, Thomas. 1994. Ecological Costs of Livestock Grazing on Western North America. Conservation Biology 8, no. 3629-644.

Freilich et al., 2003. Ecological Effects of Ranching: A Six-Point Critique. August 2003 / Vol. 53 No. 8 • BioScience 759

Freist, Terrence.J. 2002. Native Snails: Indicators of Ecosystem Health. Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West.

FAO, Livestock’s Long Shadow. Environmental Issues and Options (Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006).

FAO. Livestock’s Long Shadow. Livestock role in water depletion and pollution. (Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006).

Goodland, R Anhang, J (2009) Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens, and cows? World Watch, November/December 2009. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, USA. Pp. 10–19. Available at: http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf

 Frank, A.B. et al., 1995. Soil carbon and nitrogen of Northern Great Plains grasslands as influenced by long term grazing. J. Range Management. 48: 470-474.

Gao. Y.H. et al., 2007. Grazing intensity impacts on carbon sequestration in an alpine meadow of the eastern Tibetan Plateau. Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, 3(6): 642-647, 2007

 Goodland, R Anhang, J (2009) Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens, and cows? World Watch, November/December 2009. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, USA. Pp. 10–19. Available at: http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf

 Goodland, Robert. January 2014.  Happier Meals. Climate Alert. Climate Institute. http://www.climate.org/publications/Climate%20Alerts/2014-january/happier-meals.html

Goodland, Robert. 2013.  A fresh look at livestock greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential in Europe World Bank, 1818 Society, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, Washington DC 20433 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12454/abstract

Grobler, S.M. et al., 2014. Methane Production in different breeds, grazing different pastures or fed a total mixed ration as measures by a Laser Methane Detector. South African Journal of Animal Science 2014, 44 (Issue 5, Supplement 1)

Gruver, Mead, 2009. Report: Barbed-wire fences deadly to sage grouse. https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_719fe71a-88a3-57f2-87c7-1ebfc00edf71.html

Hanson, Brian. 2020. Irrigation of Agricultural Crops in California. Department of Land, Air and Water Resources University of California, Davis brhanson@ucdavis.edu

Hawkins, Heidi-Jayne. 2017. A global assessment of Holistic Planned Grazing compared with season-long, continuous grazing: meta-analysis findings. http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tarf20

Hogan J. P., Phillips C. J. C. (2011) Transmission of weed seed by livestock: a review. Animal Production Science 51, 391-398.

Holechek, Jerry, et al. 2000. Short-Duration Grazing: The Facts in 1999.  RANGELANDS 21(5) https://doi.org/10.1071/AN10141

IPBES (2019): Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo (editors). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

Ingram L.J. et al., 2008. Grazing impacts on soil carbon and microbial communities in a mixed-grass ecosystem. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 72:939-948

Jakesa, A., et al. 2018. A fence runs through it: A call for greater attention to the influence of fences on wildlife and ecosystems. Biological Conservation 227 (2018) 310–318

Jamus, Joseph et al., 2002. Short Duration Grazing Research in Africa An extensive review of the Charter Grazing Trials and other short-duration grazing studies on African rangelands. RANGELANDS 24(4)

Jones, Allison. 2002. Surveying the West—A Summary of Research on Livestock Impacts. Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the West. Island Press, Washington DC.

Kauffman, B., W. C. Krueger, and M. Vavra, “Effects of late-season cattle grazing on riparian plant communities,” Journal of Range Management, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 685–691, 1983.

Kauffman B. and W. C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock Impacts on Riparian Ecosystems and Streamside Management Implications: A Review JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 37(5), September 1984

Keyser A. and  Westerling Anthony, 2017, Climate drives inter-annual variability in probability of high severity fire occurrence in the western United States Environmental Research Letters, Volume 12, Number 6

Klumpp, K., Fontaine, S., Attard, E., Le Roux, X., Gleixner, G. and Soussana, J.-F. (2009), Grazing triggers soil carbon loss by altering plant roots and their control on soil microbial community. Journal of Ecology, 97: 876–885. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01549.

Lowry, Judith. Bunchgrass Basics; Simplifying California Native Bunchgrasses. https://www.larnerseeds.com/simplifying-california-native-bunchgrasses

 LeCain et al., 2004. Carbon exchange and species composition of grazed pastures and exclosures in the shortgrass steppe of Colorado. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 93 (421-435.

Mack Richard N. and John N. Thompson. 1982. Evolution of the Steppe with few large, hoofed mammals.  The American Naturalist. Vol 19. No. 6.

McGuire. Andrew 2018 . Washington State University http://csanr.wsu.edu/regen-ag-solid-principles-extraordinary-claims/ @inproceedings{Nordborg2016HolisticM, title={Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method.},author={M. Nordborg and E. R{\”o}{\”o}s},year={2016} https://regenerationinternational.org/2017/02/24/what-is-regenerative-agriculture/

McSherry, M., and Mark Richie. 2013. Effects of grazing on grassland soil carbon: a global review. Global Change Biology (2013) 19, 1347–1357, DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12144

Meyers, S., 2011. Is climate change mitigation the best use of desert shrublands? Natural Resources and Environmental Issues: Vol. 17, Article 2. Available at: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/nrei/vol17/iss1/2

Miller et al. 1990. A proposal to protect the Black footed ferret and the Prairie Dog Ecosystem. Environmental Management Vol. 14, No. 6 pp 763-769.

Miller et al. 2000. The Role of Prairie Dogs as a Keystone Species: Response to Stapp. Conservation Biology, Pages 318-321 Volume 14, No. 1, February 2000

Minchkley, W.L., and J.E. Deacon. 1991. Battle Against Extinction: Native Fish Management in the West. U of Arizona Press

Myers, Bruce. 2014. Livestock’s Hoof Print-the Challenge of Regulating Global Warming Emissions. Environmental Law Institute, Policy Brief 8.

Nickerson, Cynthia and Allison Borchers. 2012. How Is Land in the United States Used? A Focus on Agricultural Land. Economic Research Service United States Department of Agriculture.

Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method. SLU/EPOK – Centre for Organic Food & Farming & Chalmers. Available at: http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/244566/local_244566.pdf.

 Nobari. Massim 2018. https://seedthecommons.org/a-call-to-counter-the-false-solution-of-regenerative-grazing/

Noss, Reed, and Allan Cooperrider. 1994. Saving Nature’s Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press. Washington DC

 Powlson et al., 2014. Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation. Nature Climate Change July 30, 2014

 Qiu, L. et al., 2013. Ecosystem carbon and nitrogen accumulation after grazing exclusion in semiarid grassland. PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 January 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 1

Pelletier, N. et al., 2010. Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States. Agricultural System 103 (2010) 380–389.

Pils, A. and J. Wilder 2018.  Risk Analysis of Disease Transmission between Domestic Sheep and Goats and Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep. USDA Forest Service, Shoshone National Forest.

Reeder, J.D., and G.E. Schuman. 2001. Influence of livestock grazing on C sequestration in semi-arid mixed grass and short grass rangelands. Environmental Pollution, 116 457-463.

Reisner, Mark, and Sarah Bates. 1990. Overlapped Oasis: Reform or Revolution for Western Water. Island Press, Washington DC.

Reisner, Michael D. et al., 2013.  Conditions favouring Bromus tectorum dominance of endangered sagebrush steppe ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology 2013

Rhodes Jonathan J. and William L. Baker. 2008. Fire Probability, Fuel Treatment Effectiveness and Ecological Tradeoffs in Western U.S. Public Forests The Open Forest Science Journal, 2008, 1, 1-7

Richter, B.D. et al., 2020. Water scarcity and fish imperilment driven by beef production. Nature Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0483-z

Ripple, W. J., & Beschta, R. L. (2012). Large predators limit herbivore densities in northern forest ecosystems. European Journal of Wildlife Research. doi:10.1007/s10344-012-0623-5

Ripple, W. et al., 2014. Ruminants, Climate Change, and Climate Policy. Nature Climate Change Vol. 3 www.nature.com/natureclimatechange

Root, Heather et al., 2019. Grazing disturbance promotes exotic annual grasses by degrading soil biocrust communities. Ecological Applications, 0(0), 2019, e02016

Savory, A., and S. D. Parsons, 1980.“The Savory grazing method, “Rangelands, vol. 2, pp. 234–237, 1980.

 Savory, A., 1983,  “The Savory grazing method or holistic resource management,” Rangelands, vol. 5, pp. 155–159, 1983.

Savory, A., 1988. Holistic Resource Management, Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, 1988.

Savory, A., and J. Butterfield,1999. Holistic Management: A New Framework for Decision Making, Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, 1999

Savory, A., 2013. How to fight desertification and reverse climate change. https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_fight_desertification_and_reverse_climate_change/transcript?language=en

Schieltz and Rubenstein. 2016. Evidence based review: positive versus negative effects of livestock grazing on wildlife. What do we really know? Environmental Research Letters, 10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/113003.

Shao, C. et al., 2013. Grazing alters the biophysical regulation of carbon fluxes in a desert steppe. Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2013) 025012 (14pp)

Shinneman, Douglas J., Cameron L. Aldridge, Peter S. Coates, Matthew J. Germino, David S. Pilliod, and Nicole M. Vaillant. 2018. A Conservation Paradox in the Great Basin—Altering Sagebrush Landscapes with Fuel Breaks to Reduce Habitat Loss from Wildfire. Open-File Report 2018-1034

Skovlin, Jon. 1987. “Southern Africa’s Experience with Intensive Short Duration Grazing.” Rangelands. 9 (4): 162–167.

Sommer R. and D Brossio. 2014. Dynamics and climate change mitigation potential for soil carbon sequestration J of Environmental Management 144 pgs. 83-87.

Steinfeld, H.  et al., 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow. U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization.  http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

Stewart, Kelly, et al., 2002. Temporospatiall distribution of elk, mule deer, and cattle. Resource partitioning and competitive displacement. Journal of Mammalogy, 83(1):229–244, 2002

Strand, E. et al., 2017. Do perennial bunchgrasses competitively exclude Bromus tectorum in post-fire rehabilitation across spatial scales? Fire Science JFSP PROJECT ID: 15-2-01-22

Sundt, Peter. 2013. THE ECOLOGICAL IDEAS OF ALAN SAVORY: A LITERATURE REVIEW Report to Animas Foundation

Tallamy, Douglas W. (2007) Bringing Nature Home: How Native Plants Sustain Wildlife in our Gardens. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.

Treves, A. et al., 2019. Predator Control Needs a Standard of Unbiased Randomized Experiments With Cross-Over Design. Front. Ecol. Evol., 12 December 2019 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00462

Tyler B. Muhly ⁎, Marco Musiani. (2009) Livestock depredation by wolves and the ranching economy in the Northwestern U.S. Ecological Economics 68 (2009) 2439–2450

Walker. BL et al. 2007. West Nile virus and greater sage-grouse: estimating infection rate in a wild bird population. Avian Dis. 2007 Sep;51(3):691-6. doi: 10.1637/0005-2086(2007)51[691:WNVAGS]2.0.CO;2. PMID: 17992928.

 Wang, x. et al., 2015.Methane uptake and emissions in a typical steppe grazing system during the grazing season. Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 105, pgs. 14-21. 

Wang, Dong, Gao-LinWua,b, Yuan-Jun Zhua,b, Zhi-Hua Shi. 2014. Grazing exclusion effects on above- and below-ground C and N pools of typical grassland on the Loess Plateau (China) Catena 123 (2014) 113–120

Warren, S.D. et al., 1986.  The Influence of Livestock Trampling under Intensive Rotation Grazing on Soil Hydrologic Characteristics. JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 39(6). November 1966

Wilcove, David, et al. 1998. Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the United States. Bioscience 607-613.

Williamson, Matt. A. et al., 2019. Fire, livestock grazing, topography, and precipitation affect occurrence and prevalence of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) in the central Great Basin, USA Biol Invasions https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-02120-8(0123456789().,-vols() 0123458697().,-volV)

Wuerthner, George, and Mollie Matteson. 2002. Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the West. Island Press. Washington DC.

Wuerthner, George, 2002. Just Domestic Bison? Cattle are no Substitute for Buffalo. Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West. Island Press. Washington DC.

Wuerthner, George, 2002. The Donut Diet, The Too Good To Be True Claims of Holistic Management. Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West. Island Press, Washington DC.

Zaady E., Eldridge D.J., Bowker M.A. (2016) Effects of Local-Scale Disturbance on Biocrusts. In: Weber B., Büdel B., Belnap J. (eds) Biological Soil Crusts: An Organizing Principle in Drylands. Ecological Studies (Analysis and Synthesis), vol 226. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30214-0_21

---