By Jeff Burgess © 2001
Many people, including some environmentalists, are touting Holistic Resource Management (HRM) as the solution to the continuing conflicts over livestock grazing on our public lands. Subsequently, federal and state agencies are spending significant public monies to fund HRM livestock management projects across the West.
Here in Arizona, for example, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) state office spent thousands in the spring of 1994 hosting an HRM seminar. The Coconino National Forest used HRM-type arguments in the spring of 1995 to justify spending over $600,000 on a livestock management plan for its Apache Maid grazing allotment. The Environmental Protection Agency has also spent hundreds of thousands of Section 319 Grants money, which is for nonpoint source pollution reduction, on HRM projects in Arizona.
State tax dollars are involved too. The Arizona State Land Department, which administers grazing leases on millions of acres of state land, is spending money on HRM projects through its local natural resource conservation districts. The Arizona legislature even passed a bill allowing revenues from environmental logo license plate sales to be diverted to the Land Department for it to teach HRM to its grazing lessees.
Over in New Mexico, the home state of HRM's inventor, the BLM's new statewide range standards and guidelines specifically allow implementation of livestock management plans using HRM theories.
But what is this HRM?
First of all, it's a product sold by Allan Savory from his Center for Holistic Management, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It includes a land use planning process that invites participation from people with widely varied interests. The idea is to address natural resource interrelationships in order to try and foster cooperation and identify areas of consensus among various land users. The planning process is similar to the Integrated Resource Management and Coordinated Resource Management processes already used by U.S. Forest Service and BLM public range managers.
You might wonder why, since these agencies already employ a similar process for free, any public lands rancher would be willing to pay a substantial fee for Savory's HRM?
A big reason is that federal officials are supposed to be objective while Savory is not. He takes advantage of the lack of ecological perspective in traditional range science to push his own theories during the planning process. Savory's ideas are appealing to ranchers and their Wise Use brethren because he preaches that livestock are good, and even necessary, for the health of the land. He's even invented his own words to help explain it all. For instance, an arid ecosystem is "brittle", cattle are just another "tool" on the land, and vegetation that's not grazed by livestock becomes "decadent" and "over-rested."
When I contacted Savory for more information about HRM he referred me to his 1988 book, Holistic Resource Management. In the book he explains that he formed his theories while observing the land in his native Zimbabwe. He says he discovered that, "where animals were present, plants were green and growing. In areas without animals they were often grey and dying."
He also looked at areas that had been heavily disturbed by animals and he concluded, "the degree of disturbance had a proportionately positive impact on the health of plants and soils and thus the whole community."
The problem with Savory's view on grazing is there's plenty of hard science that directly contradicts it. In fact, there's a large body of evidence indicating that livestock grazing damages the American West's arid ecosystems. Additionally, there's plenty of research refuting the ecological theories pushed by HRM's proponents (Holechek 2000). And HRM experiments on public lands, such as the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest's Dodson allotment project, and the Coconino National Forest's Red Hill Cell project, have failed to produce the expected results.
Savory's basic theory is that livestock grazing can be managed in a manner that creates a disturbance which improves the land and its vegetation by stimulating new plant growth and improving the efficiency of the water and mineral cycles. He claims the amount of time cattle are allowed to graze a spot is more important than the amount of vegetation they consume. (This is why HRM is sometimes referred to as time-controlled, or short-duration, grazing.)
Even though he seems to overlook the obvious fact that, for most of the West, lack of moisture is the primary factor limiting plant growth, his theories sound intriguing because disturbances, such as floods and fires, play an important role in nature.
Ecologists, for example, have found the floods that periodically tear up the riparian habitat along the West's streams help to create the seed beds necessary to nurture the saplings which will grow to replace the vegetation removed by the violent waters (Cooperrider 1995).
But when disturbances are unnatural, they can damage ecosystems. Most of the West's riparian area's, for instance, have suffered from the tendency of livestock to congregate in them (Chaney 1990). Furthermore, cattle grazing on the uplands surrounding the riparian areas have degraded the watersheds, thereby increasing the frequency and intensity of floods (Reynolds 1911). These increased levels of disturbance have led to widespread riparian habitat degradation across the West.
Ecosystems can also be changed when natural disturbances are removed or dampened. Suppression of wildfires by humans has reduced fire frequency and encouraged the invasion of grasslands by woody vegetation, like pinyon, juniper and mesquite (Humphrey 1949; Humphrey 1953; Humphrey 1958; Burkhardt 1976; Wright 1976; Young 1981).
LIVESTOCK MIMIC WILD UNGULATES
Savory claims disturbances caused by livestock grazing are natural because the vegetation co-evolved with herds of wild grazing animals. But that's not true for the arid rangelands of the Intermountain West. Big herds of large grazing animals, such as bison, haven't been found west of the Rockies since at least the end of the Pleistocene era, more than 10,000 years ago. That's because, as the climate dried out, the land was unable to support them in numbers great enough to survive pressure from human hunters. And the plants adapted to a wetter climate also disappeared. They were replaced with vegetation suited to the new arid conditions. Subsequently, most of the area's modern vegetation is not adapted to intense grazing from large ungulates. Instead of mimicking grazing by wildlife, disturbances caused by cattle have led to the spread of exotic and invasive annuals (Mack 1982, Belsky 2000). (Some HRM advocates have pointed to proliferating annuals as proof that HRM management has increased plant production!?)CATTLE HOOF ACTION IS BENEFICIAL
Savory also argues in favor of livestock-caused disturbances by claiming it's good when cattle trample the vegetation because it helps to speed up the decay of standing organic matter thereby improving the nutrient cycle. But the West's arid climates put limits on ecosystem nutrient cycling that man cannot manipulate. For instance, much of the litter knocked to the ground quickly dries out, becomes lighter, and is blown away by wind erosion. Research has also found that arid climates severely limit the microbial decomposition of organic matter. Most organic decomposition in the desert, they've found, is the result of detritus-feeding arthropods, especially subterranean termites, consuming litter in their underground tunnels beneath the topsoil (Hadley 1981; Whitford 1982).Besides that, large amounts of organic matter are lost to the ecosystem every year when the cattle are rounded up and sent off to market. The lack of moisture, not soil nutrients, is the biggest factor controlling vegetation growth in the arid West. And the rain doesn't follow the hoof.
Another thing Savory claims is that livestock-caused disturbances are preferable to fire because fire creates more bare ground which causes more erosion. Throughout his book, Savory focuses on the percentage of bare ground and space between plants as the prime factor in determining rates of erosion. And it's been understood for a long time that the percentage of vegetative ground cover plays a big part in determining erosion rates (Forsling 1931; Lowdermilk 1930).
However, there are other important factors that affect the rate of erosion which Savory seems to ignore. For instance, Savory asserts that the hoof action of cattle benefits the land by breaking up the surface of the soil, which slows down runoff and provides a good seed bed for new plants. But research has shown the trampling of the ground by livestock actually increases runoff in two ways. First, it compacts the soil's upper layers, which reduces the ground's ability to soak up water, thereby increasing runoff and accelerating erosion. Studies have shown that cattle can compact the soil as much as heavy tractors (Lull 1959) and that it can take more than a year for the soil to rebound from this trampling (Stephenson 1987). Secondly, the primary effect of hooves breaking the soil crust on arid lands is not to create good seedbeds, but to accelerate erosion by making the surface more easily blown and washed away (Weltz 1986; Taylor 1989; Johansen 1993; Trimble 1995). Some soil crusts, the cryptogamic ones, are alive and contribute to the nutrient cycle in addition to slowing erosion and providing habitat for plants. Destroying them doesn't allow more "useful" plants to grow, but produces more bare soil and erosion (Anderson 1982; Bethenfalvay 1984; Evans 1999; Harper 1985; Ladyman 1996).
It's not soil crusting that inhibits seed germination on arid lands, it's the scarcity of moisture. Studies of the effects of cattle hoof action upon seed germination have found the quantity and timing of precipitation is the most important factor affecting seedling survival (Bryant 1989; Eckert 1986; Winkel 1991). While it's true seeds driven into the ground by cattle hooves may be more likely to succeed when a wet year finally comes, grazing reduces the number and composition of seeds that are waiting for the rains in the first place.
The fact is, many researchers have concluded that Savory's intense, short duration grazing system can significantly accelerate erosion on the West's arid lands, even more than conventional grazing (Pieper 1988; Thurow 1986; Warren 1986; Weltz 1986; Weltz 1989). The economic ramifications of this are enormous considering the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent on surface water storage and delivery systems throughout the West.
Savory's characterization of cattle grazing as a disturbance preferable to fire is even stranger if you compare their effects upon the land. On the West's arid grasslands, fire inhibits the spread of woody vegetation while grazing promotes it by removing the fine fuels needed to carry the fires that control it. In the ponderosa pine forests, periodic fires thin out the trees while grazing promotes dense thickets by removing the ground cover that strangles tree seedlings (Rummell 1951; Belsky 1997). And most importantly, fires are naturally periodic events and livestock grazing is a disturbance that is imposed upon the land every year.
LIVESTOCK GRAZING IMPROVES VEGETATION
Another reason Savory claims livestock grazing is a desirable disturbance is that it provokes plants to produce new growth, which is better food for cattle. Scientists acknowledge that many plants compensate for injuries, such as those caused by grazing animals, by producing new growth. Research has shown, however, that plant biomass cannot be increased by grazing except under growth- chamber or cultivated conditions which are, from an ecological perspective, irrelevant. (Belsky 1986; Bartolome 1993; Briske 1993; Cox 1985; Painter and Belsky 1993; Patten 1993).The stimulation plants get from being grazed doesn't necessarily make them any healthier. If intense grazing is followed by a dry period the plants cannot recover and may die. Desert grasses, for instance, store energy above ground in their basal areas so that they can respond to the infrequent rains as quickly as possible. If they are over-utilized, or utilized too frequently, their reserves are exhausted. This is crucial considering Savory's advocacy of high forage utilization and cattle stocking rates.
HIGH STOCKING RATES ARE GOOD
Range scientists have found that a conservative annual forage utilization rate of 35% or less, with livestock numbers low enough to ensure this maximum is not exceeded, is the most important factor in the success of a livestock management plan (Holechek 1999). Savory disagrees and claims bigger herds help to maximize the desired animal impact upon the land. He claims that the time the animals are allowed to graze is much more important than the number of animals grazed. He advocates moving livestock frequently in large, dense herds.Savory's arguments for higher stocking rates are popular, as you might imagine, with ranchers. But even though the benefits of frequently moving cattle should not be dismissed, researchers have found the negative effects of high forage utilization levels cannot be overcome by HRM's short duration grazing system (Dormaar 1989; Ralphs 1990). Reducing the amount of time cattle are in a pasture is effective only if it results in lower forage utilization levels. What matters is how much the cattle eat, not how long they eat. The longer plant recovery times gained by short duration grazing can't help the vegetation recover if it's been too severely used, or there's a drought. And periodic droughts are inevitable in the arid West.
In fact, ecologists have found high forage utilization levels can degrade grasslands so severely that they decline past ecological thresholds on to different, usually less productive, vegetative continuums (Anderson 1981; Westoby 1989; Laycock 1991). And during a drought, even moderate levels of grazing can cause this to happen (Thurow 1999).
DEAD PLANT MATERIAL IS BAD
Still, the notion that a greener plant is necessarily a healthier one is easy to believe. You only have to look at all the effort Americans expend to maintain bright green lawns and golf courses to see just how deeply the idea is embedded in our culture's psyche.However, besides providing fuel for brush-controlling fires and slowing erosion, dead plant material in the wild provides essential habitat, food and cover for a variety of living things. HRM advocates complain that dead, or "decadent", vegetation hinders plant growth by blocking sunlight. But lack of water, not sunlight, is the major factor limiting plant growth in the arid West. In fact, many plants and animals find life-giving shade beneath old growth. It also keeps the soil cooler.
I've found HRM advocates are quite stubborn in their belief that grazing is good for plants. In one small way they are correct. Different plants react differently to being grazed and certain species will thrive where livestock grazing has altered the rules of survival in their favor. In these situations it may appear that grazing has benefited the vegetation.
The 8,000 acre Diamond C Ranch in southeastern Arizona is a good example. They use HRM techniques and the ranch's manager, Rukin Jelks III, likes to show visitors what they are doing. I was part of a group of grazing activists that visited with Mr. Jelks in the spring of 1995. We were in the area to tour the adjacent National Audubon Society's Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch, which hasn't been grazed by livestock for more than 17 years.
Jelks's ranch is on the left side of the fence. The Audubon Ranch is on the right.
Note the difference in the amount of ground cover.
Mr. Jelks tried to convince us the land on his side of the fence was in better shape because the plants on his ranch were greener and had less old growth attached. His land was dominated by shortgrass species (Bock 1993), which benefit from cattle removing taller competitors. Shortgrass also gains an advantage from grazing because it spreads by means of runners, so it doesn't matter as much if most of its seeds get eaten by cattle.
Therefore, even though Jelks's cattle may have created an opportunity for certain species to prosper, it shouldn't be interpreted to mean his livestock have improved the land. Particular species may be more abundant on the Jelks ranch, but there is greater overall biodiversity and groundcover on the ungrazed Audubon ranch (Bock 1984; Brady 1989). Furthermore, creating competitive advantages for plants that grow out, rather than up, reduces the space between plants, which conveniently helps to support claims that HRM works.
Appleton-Whittel Research Ranch
Savory admits in his book he also likes grazing because it can generate financial profits. (HRM style livestock management is, however, expensive to implement.) And while Savory tries to portray HRM as a totally neutral planning process, it's clear to the reader there's no "whole" in his holism unless there's a whole lot of cows on the land. It's ironic a strategy focusing so tightly on livestock production is promoted as being inclusive.
Yet, I'm not saying HRM is all bad. It's collaborative and adaptive planning system is appealing. And it's good that Savory encourages ranchers to regularly get out and see what's happening on the land.HRM style livestock management may even, in some situations, allow land in poor condition to improve somewhat, as something is always better than nothing. HRM proponents like to point to modest improvements in the condition of the land in some places where HRM was used and claim the cattle "improved" it. But scientific people would say the degradation being inflicted on the ecosystem by the exotic species was mitigated, allowing the land to recover somewhat. They would also point out the need for a control study plot, and that would mean comparing the HRM-managed land to land under a science-based management system, and ungrazed land too.
The 26,000 acre Orme Ranch, located in central Arizona, is a good example. It's managed by Alan and Diana Kessler using HRM style livestock management. The Kesslers also like to show people what they're doing. One of the things the Kesslers are proud of is the improvement they've seen in the condition of the ranch's riparian areas. When our group toured their ranch in April, 1996, the Kesslers took us to see Ash Creek and Dry Creek, which they thought were in good condition. We'd seen worse, but both creeks were still pretty grim and not in proper functioning condition. Comparisons with streams where cattle have been totally excluded show far better results.
| Dry Creek, V Bar Allotment (Orme Ranch) Prescott National Forest, Arizona | |
|---|---|
 |
 |
| April 1996 - Pretty grim. | July 1999 - No improvement. |
Yet even if HRM succeeded at maintaining or improving vegetative health, it would be inappropriate to implement it on public land. High intensity grazing grazing damages wildlife habitat by stripping the land of standing ground cover, which is an essential habitat requirement for many species, like pronghorn antelope (Neff 1979) and quail (Brown 1982). Recently grazed pastures can be so densely covered in cow pies that they resemble feedlots, and the myriad of fences required to intensively manage the cattle restrict wildlife movements and annoy the general public.
Savory says in his book that, "everything in the end hangs on the understanding and application of our ideas by politicians." On this point I agree with him. Our political leaders need to know the truth about HRM. They need to understand that livestock grazing does not improve our arid public lands, nor is it a suitable use for much of them.
We also need to ensure that public land managers quit wasting tax dollars on short duration grazing schemes. The research shows there is no significant controversy in the scientific community about HRM. Its ecological theories have been repeatedly refuted. The real controversy is why so many federal officials continue to allow HRM grazing systems on public lands when studies and field trials showing they are inferior have been readily available since the 1970's.
END
Please contact author at for permission to reprint this article.
NOTE: Previous versions of this article were published in the Canyon Echo, and Arizona Wildlife News.