I would like to congratulate Allan Savory on winning the 2010 Buckminster Fuller award (“Save the land – keep more animals”, Farmer’s Weekly, 13 August 2010). Allan deserves international recognition for a lifetime’s work in not only solving the problem of veld degradation, but in pointing the way forward to a many-fold increase in ranch profitability. I support Allan’s views, in broad terms, and would like to make some further suggestions on how we can achieve greater harmony between man, cattle and veld, having implemented severe grazing and high animal impact since 1995.
I believe Allan’s greatest contribution is sharing his understanding of the symbiotic relationship between the veld, severe grazers and predators and how we can use cattle to increase the veld’s productivity beyond what’s considered possible. Holistic management not the whole story I also believe the statement he made 30-odd years ago that “all grazing systems fail” was very unfortunate in that it confused and alienated many potential allies.
In apparent reference to certain grazing trials and projects of the 1970s, for example, he says in the Farmer’s Weekly article that if these failed it wasn’t due to “holistic management”. If that’s the case, where does that leave successful grazing systems that haven’t been managed holistically by Allan’s definition? My point is that for those who understand the veld-grazer-predator relationship, physical constraints on the ground are the cause of failures, not whether you manage holistically a la Savory or not.
If we consider the minimum whole that a rancher can manage to be that encompassed by the veld-grazer-predator relationship, and the goal to be maximum sustainable profit per hectare, then the issue of a grazing system is irrelevant. The argument that arose in the 1970s regarding “grazing systems” and “grazing methods”, and later, “holistic management” overshadowed the physical constraints that come into play when optimising the veld-grazer-predator relationship.
Had Allan concentrated on overcoming the constraints, the results he achieved lately could have been achieved 25 years ago. Take the charter trial in Zimbabwe, for example. The main reason why this was considered a “failure” was the decrease in individual animal performance (13% lower calving rate and 10% lighter weaners at double stocking rate relative to the control).
This was despite the fact the gross margin was 28% higher, return on capital investment was the same and the veld didn’t deteriorate relative to the control (considered the best in conventional ranch management). If, in retrospect, the objective of the trial was to compare two management systems relative to a goal of maximum sustainable profit per hectare, then the ”savory system” with its double stocking rate would clearly have been a success.
What would also have been clear is:
- Stocking rate is by far the most important factor determining the profitability of a ranching business, especially when considering the high land prices in South Africa. The maximum sustainable stocking rate possible is the basis for successful ranching. Also of great importance is high animal performance in the form of reproduction. If this was clearly understood by everyone involved in the charter trials, it’s probable that further efforts to address the constraints on higher animal performance would have increased gross margins 100% (in line with a 100% increase in stocking rate) and doubled return on capital investment.
- Cattle genotype is extremely important in increasing gross margin in line with an increase in stocking rate. This involves maintaining a high reproductive rate, and it’s unfortunate that the genetic component of fertility is downplayed by many not actively involved in cattle breeding.
I believe holistic management practitioners need to acknowledge genotype (microsuccession) as part of the ecosystem processes to maximise profit per hectare and give greater credibility to holistic management in the rancher’s eyes.
- Allan has always emphasised the importance of high stock densities. The maximum stock density in the charter trial was extremely low (16 paddocks per herd) in terms of the animal impact required to improve the veld. Stock density was also too low to minimise the drop in performance resulting from non-selective grazing. My experience on similar veld is that a minimum stock density of 500 to 1 000 livestock units per hectare (hundreds of “paddocks” per herd) is required. The constraint on ultra-high stock density was the physical and financial impossibility of creating enough paddocks with conventional fencing. If those involved in the trial had researched the effects of high animal impact on small test plots, there would have been sufficient motivation to find a practical means (portable electric fencing or physical herding) of increasing stock density. It would not have been necessary to wait until the 1990s to go through the sound barrier, so to speak, in terms of animal impact.
- Good animal husbandry practices are still necessary if the aim is maximum sustainable profit per hectare. In Allan’s case, where the goal is more encompassing due to the wildlife factor, animal impact may be more important than individual performance – cattle run as one herd would be the best option.
However, on a commercial ranch with the appropriate paddock layout, herds can be separated into class and age groups and managed according to nutritional requirements. This will increase profit per hectare.I will always be indebted to Allan for helping me understand the veld-grazer-predator relationship. It has empowered me and ranchers I advise to double, treble and even quadruple stocking rates.
With the appropriate genotypes, improved herd management and aligning production with seasonal changes in nutrition, we hope to increase gross margin and return on investment in line with stocking rate increases. To be truly successful these practices will have to be followed by a significant number of prominent ranchers. In this regard I appeal to Allan to encourage outsiders to change the negative image holistic management has with the average rancher.
By “outsiders” I don’t necessarily mean “a team of top scientists from South Africa’s Agricultural Research Council”. Neither do I discount such collaboration. But, from personal experience, I’m sceptical of any positive outcome from academia. In any case, they’re no longer relevant to the veld debate since they’ve been overtaken by events on the ground. There is a greater chance of success through involving ranchers with their feet on the ground and a passion for improving their veld and their cattle.
E-mail Johann Zietsman at [email protected].
