"Desertification is a fancy word for land that is turning to desert," begins Allan Savory in this quietly powerful talk. And terrifyingly, it's happening to about two-thirds of the world's grasslands, accelerating climate change and causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. Savory has devoted his life to stopping it. He now believes -- and his work so far shows -- that a surprising factor can protect grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at http://www.ted.com/translate
Follow TED news on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/tednews
Like TED on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TED
Subscribe to our channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/TEDtalksDirector
If there was no vegetation on the desertification plots that you put animals on, what did they eat? Your "before" photos showed most dirt. Any animals, let alone large concentrations of animals would starve. Certainly the cattle might move or migrate and they might even defecate and urinate while moving, but unless you provided some food, supplemental hay, grain or some other form of food, their waste material would be minimal. It seem the one factor that your theory does not account for is that there is no food at the before stage. Ten thousand sheep will certainly break up surface areas, but you can't put 10,000 sheep on bare soil without food. They would starve long before their waste composed or broke down, long before they defecated enough waste and digested seeds to revegetate an area. A second point, is that you would need active herding to keep the animal moving (or else subject them to real lion attacks). And lastly, when herd animals first evolved your vegetative process, over thousands of years, there were not 50,000 tribesmen competing for space and water.
Over grazing is still a problem though. It's the fact that they are passing livestock over the land, mimicking nature, that helps the grass grow back. Not leaving mass livestock there to trample and over graze permanently.
And who says we have to run cattle over the land? They still have to be fed. 91% of Amazon deforestation is caused by creating crops for feeding livestock in the animal agriculture industry. We could run mass amounts of people over the land instead, and just leave human made waste fertilizer behind. There are huge amounts of human fertilizer created from waste water management facilities. God knows there are enough people to do it. I would go and walk over a field with a huge group of people to help trample the dead grass, and sprinkle fertilizer around.
I couldn't continue after hear from himself how many elephant he was responsible to kill. If we have 100 like this guys doing such ”untested ideas or techniques ” we might not have elephant anymore, or whatever they think is not good!
The American south west is often referred to as the "desert southwest" but it wasn't always that way. Scientists have a fascinating way to figure out what was here at different eras. There are pack rats throughout the area and they studiously bring odd and varied things back to their den until it is filled and they go find another hole to use, such as a rabbit hole, etc. When the scientists find these ancient pack rat dens they take the contents and examine them for pollen which tells them exactly which plants were in the immediate vicinity. They find other clues such as animal hairs as well. They carbon date the items and from that know when those plants and animals were wandering around the area.
The American southwest was mainly forested with Ponderosa pines and a few other species. As clouds pass over forested land they cool off and tend to drop rain. The area was far from being a desert but man doesn't tend to notice their power to change the environment until it is too late.
The problem was that the native Indians used wood for many purposes; fuel for fires, logs for roofs, etc. There is evidence that once they had used up all of the local trees, that they began to harvest from further and further away and transport them by river until it became unsustainable and their civilization collapsed.
So much for the myth of natives being the great stewards of the land. At least not all of them, many were but not all.
AT the time of Napoleon, the Sahara desert was less than half the size that it is today. It is well documented that the people living on the fringes cut down the trees, graze their goats and cattle, dig up the roots for fire wood until the need for fuel for their fires forces them to move further out on the fringes to where thee are trees to use for fuel. It is a vicious cycle that could be reversed if we chose to.
However, I am certain that once the deserts started reducing, and the land became fertile once again, that this same fellow or one of his students would cry out about the loss of desert.
_"this same fellow or one of his students would cry out about the loss of desert."_ well give it 15,000 years & we'll find out :) That's when the Sahara's going to green again. There's a well established pattern of earth "wobble" in 30,000 year cycles that moves the Sahara into & out of the seasonal rains. It has nothing to do with humans cutting down trees. If they didn't cut them down, they were going to die anyway as the rains receded & the stars moved (well the earth moved, but it was the stars that appeared to move to the people back then).
This technique is suited to the sahel, not the sahara at it's current time (although I doubt you even watched the video, you certainly don't seem to have grasped anything it was about if you did! You're just hung up on attacking all ancient people & believing you're superior to them)
just blew the concept of the Australian aboriginals that have BURNED the land for supposedly 50,000 years no wonder we have the driest and mostly desert inland of any continentThey never farmed grazing animals ,killed out the Mega fauna ,and yet have the temerity to say we are the guardians of this land ,NO they changed it in to desert and part desertThis should be shown on every Australian television channel Thank you
Latest evidence says 80,000 years, megafauna went extinct between 30,000 & 40,000 years ago. The dates don't match up for extinctions from them. 30,000 year ago however does match up to when the Northern Hemisphere was covered in ice & that same ice age caused no rain in Australia. They also extensively "farmed" animals, however there were no animals in this country with herding ability. If you try to fence a kangaroo with these techniques, it will just throw itself at the fence repeatedly until it kills itself! Can't cage stupid animals like that! So they had to find alternative methods to farm them, which they did & which largely match to what is being recommended here, but factoring in the difficulty with the animals available to them. Kangaroos also refuse to eat long grass. Farmers in Australia today that have switched to this system have found a massive reduction in kangaroos on their properties because the kangaroos refuse to eat or even hop through the long grass.
Also if what you are implying is correct & the only reason for desert is burning, then areas not burnt for 200 years should now be lush, green oasis's again right? why aren't they?
Wow! Simply amazing how nature can heal itself with animals! Here's one way to fix global warming. Climate change is going to kill us. Since we caused it, only us can stop it. Let's revert climate change before the Industrial Era!
Earth's atmosphere is a carbon dioxide desert. A simple elementary math proof shows: 400 parts per million (PPM) = 400/1,000,000 = 40/100,000 = 4/10,000 = .4/1000 = .04/100 x 100 = .04% = (in words) four hundredths of one percent, which constitutes a vanishingly small (i.e. infinitesimal) concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere. It is so small in fact that it is near the point (.02%) where food producing photosynthesis processes shut down. Don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself. It's elementary school math. Anyone can do it.
Ms. Lizard, carbon dioxide is not carbon monoxide and is not cyanide, Your body exhales it at far higher concentrations than ambient (.04%). It takes a concentration of 6% or 60,000 PPM, 150 times ambient for carbon dioxide to kill you through suffocation. Ounce for ounce it's heat trapping capacity is far less than that of water vapor as explained here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIBsjBvRTew When are you going to #walkaway from the Deep-Blue State false narratives, propaganda, cheating and outright lies? Never? To gain real understanding of our climate listen to this woman, this real scientist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_yqIj38UmY&t=1s When are you going to #walkaway from the relentless lies? When?
.04 is DOUBLE .02, so HARDLY "near"
Because something doesn't need to be high doesn't mean doubling it is fine. Try doubling medicines your doctor gives you & see what happens! More isn't better! 0.02% (200ppm) of carbon monoxide is more than enough to kill you!
0.001% (10ppm) cyanide is enough to cause serious harm to you
0.005% (50ppm) cyanide is enough to kill you
your calculations are meaningless, you clearly don't understand the subject matter you're messing with
the 5% of the middle east thats not desert is Israel , the only country today to have more tree now than there was 100 years ago ..- Israel produces 95% of its own food and is a leader in reforestation and technology .
An Australian, Peter Andrews has paid an enormous price for his environmental beliefs that have challenged accepted farming practices. Australia is in the grip of a terrible drought, yet farmers still overgraze, are still bulldozing large tracts of land & paying little heed to soil microbiology. https://www.peterandrewsoam.com There is hope!
Have you seen this video on him? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4OBcRHX1Bc&lc=z231x1dxbofswliga04t1aokgi00ymuqz2p51alob5egbk0h00410.1542384763037142 (I know this video's coming up in recommended from that video, so you might have & that might be what brought you here, but if not, enjoy :))
I get what you're saying but I it's half the store, don't use katal use nachral grazers, if like stock is used than it will only tern into a meet product... And not as food for a nachral predator, I do like the first step and the proof of concept and just how much a first step can do... But it's still just a first step
I think it's more a case of 5 years on vegans still hate him, while the farming community around the world are steadily converting to this proven system http://www.regenerateland.com/evidence-supporting-holistic-management/
with a study where they put the same number of cows onto the same sized piece of land & kept them on the same sized areas summer & winter, drought & flood, tropical & near arctic & then surprise surprise, found different conditions meant the same quantity of land could feed different numbers of animals & therefore they declared this technique was unable to be replicated & therefore declared it failed to pass scientific testing (of course real science factors in changes in environmental conditions, as does all farming. Any farming system they tested with the paramaters they set would have failed).
Mic then goes on to explain how this system's not needed because there's this thing called "veganic farming" where they plow up the ground (outdated technique that causes mass erosion) to plant legumes which can fix nitrogen into the soil & then plow them into the soil & that somehow miraculously, the plants that require phosphorous fertiliser to grow will thrive because nitrogen (No phosphorous) has been added to the soil. All farmers crop rotate with nitrogen fixing plants, but they all also add either animal manure or chemical phosphorous & potassium to the soil, as would the "veganic" farm he spoke of, but he conveniently left out the chemical additions.
Or put simply, as per usual, he cherrypicked, deliberately deceived & used intentionally 20+ year old studies to "debunk" a system that is being systematicly rolled out around the world & universally accepted as superior to alternative techniques
drinking water for the animals is likely always going to need to be supplimented in the form of wells, but that is normal in the regions of the world where this is most effective anyway, the difference with this system is that water they drink is more likely to get recycled into something that helps plants grow, instead of just being lost to evaporation
depends on what else they're given. If their children are dying of disease before reaching adulthood (very common, especially if they don't have access to clean drinking water or fuel to boil the water) then they will have lots of kids, in the hope of having at least a couple survive to adulthood & be able to care for them in their old age.
When clean drinking water & basic health care are also provided & the kids are healthy & clearly going to survive to adulthood, the parents will then seek out birth control, so they can divert all resourses to the 2-3 kids they have. If they can access birth control at an affordable cost, they will have an average 2 children survive to adulthood & populations will therefore stabilise. Without reliable food, clean water & basic health care, populations increase (but also plummet at times of famine, with lots of deaths, then increase again)
Put simply, giving them food aid is a step in the right direction for population control, but not on it's own a solution & it doesn't increase populations, it's not like mice that just breed to use whatever food is available, human life spans are too long to function like that
He's not saying let's just get more animals on the land. Let the grass grow, then knock it down to work into the soil. After a few years the soil improved dramatically. I think this should be combined with methods being practiced by some in Australia to stop all the water just running away and we really could turn huge amounts of land back to a healthy state. And on top of that the steady planting of suitable trees. None of its rocket science, but it could drastically improve our natural environment.
One of the key parts of this system that doesn't get mentioned in this video is a long term (12 month) grazing plan & immediately destocking if there won't be enough food for the current stock in 12 months with current conditions. There's many farmers in NSW at the moment using this system, down to between 20-40% of their original stock & still feeding on dead grass in paddocks, not buying/importing in any food. That dead grass still standing there is stopping erosion too & even catching good soil from other properties that have eaten the grass into the ground, meaning when the drought breaks, they'll be in an even better position than pre-drought & they can use all the money they have sitting in the bank from early cattle sales to fully restock. There is actually a lot of environmental improvements going on on Australian farms right now, it's just that we only hear about the bad ones. That Australian Story story was a great exception to that! Definitely works brilliantly alongside this! (and pasture cropping from Colin Seis is a great addition too, have a look at his video on here if you haven't already :)) Fascinating hearing about how the land was when his grandfather started farming it!
They HATE it! It threatens everything they believe in! This better meets their stated aims with vegan eating of minimising harm than their current eating habits do & if you talk to lots of vegans, more often than not, the real reason they went vegan is a teenage fad where they were grossed out by "blood" in their meat/dinner, or as cover for an eating disorder, so those ones in particular will go to great lengths to try to discredit this, usually just with a couple of pro-vegan, anti-this articles, combined with ranting about the elephants mistake as proof that this is wrong too
this old man is dangerous..."oh, I tried fixing it the first time and did something horrible [killed 10,000 elephants]"... oh but as a 'scientist' i now have the solution.... yikes, just stop digging, you dug a deep enough hole.
If communist china created its own desertification then CCP could not just come around the world looking for land to grow food for their 1.4billion people. They should spend time and money working on improving their own land and people. The world is not for CCP to take possession for their people which they even want more in number as if 1.4 billion is not enough haha
Human cannot change climat! Thats a lie. The sun is the most powerfull thing in light years radius and it is only 8 light minutes apart from us. Thats why our planet is unstable. A moderate burst of sun particles can desert our whole planet inside of a month! A huge burst if it is directed on earth can evaporate all our water into space. Yet we are arrogant enough to deny that fact and we kill animals like our ancestors did in religional rites. I see no difference. We are geneticly similar to our ancient ancestors. We have all their flaws and ignorance. Only thing that changed is that we are now a huge and powerfull society. We are inteligent and conscious animals, as marvelous as we are, but we are still so full of ourselves, that we can wager few thousands of magnificent animals which are almost as great as we are in terms of inteligence, consciousness and perception (well in terms of perception they outclass us heavily to be honest) against theory of one ignorant man. But I apreciate this man trying to apply something that needs to be done at way bigger scale. Our biggest cities need to mimic nature! We need to accomodate wildlife and learn to live alongside with them. In this terms Native North Americans were much greater developed society than we, the White Ones, will ever be. Cause we are greedy, ignorant and empty society.
Trees ask so little from us And give us back So Much
Water and space to grow
They pull in carbon dioxide and dispense oxygen
And they are beautiful
We need to do a better job of managing the natural world and managing the Earths forests.
and grass pulls in double the carbon of the tree! don't judge beauty by your own standards, all of nature is beautiful!
c4 grasses make up just 5% of terrestrial biomass, but account for 23% of all terrestrial carbon sequestration while using less than 1/5th the water of trees. It is the grasslands that we need to care for!
no, here's an article from a soil scientist (that backs this system) about methane http://www.amazingcarbon.com/PDF/JONES-CarbonFriendlyBeef(27April10).pdf add to that chart on that page, there's been numerous mass ruminant die-offs in history, especially the North American Bison & riderpest outbreaks in Africa, but no change in methane levels when those animals died (10% of all ruminants in Africa in one of the outbreaks). the methane's just the carbon taken into the plants a few months earlier & if not decomposed inside cows, it's decomposed by the same microbes in the ground, giving off the same methane anyway. Fossil fuel methane is a big problem, since it was out of the active carbon cycle for millions of years, but cow & tree methane is really not an issue (trees are responsible for between 10 & 30% of total methane emissions)
Desertification is an outgrowth of exploitation of natural resources. Humans and Animals are integral to the survival of ecosystems. The problem arrived with the removal of the "10,000 year old Drum Beating Pastoralists Society" and the slaughter of the indigenous wildlife.
This is the practical solution to climate change; not spending a $Billion a day on 'schemes', not carbon capture, not carbon trading, not any of the rubbish solutions spouted by the IPCC and the vested interests of politicians, 'journalists' and activists. That don't work. This. Animals growing pastureland feeding the animals feeding the population saving the planet.
all the animals you listed give off the same amounts of methane :) They just don't get attention because there's no politics in it. Kangaroos are low methane, but they can't be herded for this system. The methane's just the stuff from the carbon the plants took out of the atmosphere a few months earlier though, so just part of the natural carbon cycle & not an issue. Total methane emitting ruminants on the planet right now is at it's lowest point in human history
I know people who are vegan/vegetarian, reason being they want to "save the planet". If what Allan says is true, we need to increase cattle and grazing animals in vast numbers -- and obviously people need to use them for food. By doing so will be reversing desertification and truly saving the planet, as well as improving their own health.
Depends on how much rain the land gets, just like any farming, the more rain, the more grass & the more often the animals can be put in there. Basicly they graze heavily & then wait until the grass has grown to near maturity before returning the animals, although on occasion they wait until the grass is fully mature & in full seed, then they graze it & then move the cows next to the location where they want to spread those seeds to.
They need to have the grass develop good long roots before a regraze so that the roots can break up the deeper compaction caused by the herd of animals.
In prime cropland, that's going to be one grazing about every 20 days, in really marginal near desert land, it might take 2 years before the grass will mature enough for a regraze. Consistent, predictable pattern with the timing, but it's based on weather & grass growth rather than human timescales, just like nature does, the wild herds they speak of begin their migration when the rains begin, not on a certain date.
Here's another video on the topic from someone from the Savory Institute, but being given to farmers considering starting the system & so it goes into a lot more technical & practical details https://youtu.be/ZP_tR4FNx3E?t=1265 There is lots more info out there, this was just a teaser/something to get the attention of non-farmers who won't actually be using it
hmm, wouldnt higher CO2 levels increase vegetative growth? Ive seen no evidence of increased plant growth around the world.. i dont see why none of these equations include Everything that emits CO2.. Practically half of existence emits Co2.. From the oceans, & the volcanoes alone emit as much as we do if not exponentially more.. to Deciduous forest and fungi, to amphibians and bacteria.. The amount of things emitting co2 are acutally low compared to past levels and life.. The megalithic era was crazy high with CO2 emitting life and natural sources.. Were talking rodents the size of mules... birds that would stand chest high to a 6 ft man today... CO2 levels were higher and in turn Oxygen Lvls were higher.. The plants had more fuel so they grew bigger and produced more oxygen.. Scientist have been saying this for years.. The connection that Co2 is thinning the atmosphere is theoretic.. Theres just no concrete evidence for it.. People say well look at the weather, theres your proof... That doesnt prove its CO2.. We know the Ice caps have melted before.. we also know the world goes through warm periods.. so Whos to say them ice caps arent suppose to melt again, if its just left oveer ice from the last ice age.. while yes this commits changes in the earth, but the earth has always changed.. i mean bill gates said the world could only support 1 billion people indefinitely along with their emissions.. While never including big game or other mammals or any of the other things ive mentioned.. we would need to account for every living thing on the planet before making claims like that to promote depopulation.. The theory that carbon is harming our atmosphere was really started and pushed as a precautionary method.. But i can tell you right now its got to do with Nanoparticulate metals like aluminum and barium.. Which is being found in the ground soil and water all over the world in staggering amounts.. This would explain the drought, the flashout deaths of trees and plants around the world.. The infertility of ground soils in areas previously very ripe for growth, because it raises the ph of everything and once the soil and water get under or over 7.. The plants cant take in certain minerals and self destructs.. you can talk to multiple meteorologist about this and biologist, they would all agree.. If CO2 levels have continuously been rising because of US, and its happend in the last 50-100 years, we should be able to put this to rest all together by just cutting an older tree down and measuring the widths between rings over the last hundred years.. In the last 30 years the rings should become increasingly sparse over the years because as the CO2 builds every year the trees would grow faster and faster... even if not incredibly noticeable, by terms of milimeters it should be fairly easy to show increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.. the worlds always had increasingly clever ways of dealing with gases and toxins.. But CO2 is like one of the main building blocks of life and the world.. If it were a coin it'd go CO2/O2 or H2O haha.. I just havent yet seen the evidence for it yet.. The mainstream science community is always soo adament about finding correct answers before determining that somthing is dangerous not safe for human consumption.. But without any concrete proof that CO2 is the actual culprit of our thinning atmosphere there willing to enact programs to control it. seems ridiculous.. sounds like a clever way to tax you for the air you breath and guilt the public into depopulation..
Mr.Savory: such a clever fellow and "you can think of nothing"? OVERPOPULATION is the source of every social and environmental problem. Reducing human numbers is the ONLY REMEDY. ..all others 'fixes' are temporary and inevitably will fail. ZPG
TED : No doubt, if peer confirmation of the gentleman's findings are available or forthcoming he has made an impressive discovery. Despite his very lucid explanation of his amazing 'methodology' and positive results, one aspect of the thing is puzzling. The documentary shows some utterly barren scenery-with nothing edible for grazers, herbivores. It isn't clear how the environmental change occurs? How can a sterile environment contribute to land or beast. and vice versa? We can visualize an enormous passing herd of grazers, and they need-seek food and water. Nothing. And, perhaps at this time in their passing, they have nothing to give [manure/urine] to the land?
Yet, this miraculous transformation!?! Do land changes rely solely on manure/urine depositions from passing herds?
This is what they actually do on land as bad as you discuss there to jump start it's recovery https://youtu.be/fnv1tDuzjiM?list=PL1mdVN1WPaRkJ7K-1vi2VTLfyL2Z9W7zF&t=116 beyond that, it's many years of regular use of this system to get there, so they're using a mix, do as in that link to small areas as they do the more general system around it, then move off & return the next year & they have great grass in the intense area to use as a base for the animals to eat as they repeat that process in a new area until eventually all the land is good & that then becomes the base to move further into the desertified land that is completely bare
Ive always thought that global meat production can not be as large a cause of increased greenhouse emissions as is gone on about, because they eat plants and give off CO2 but then more plants grow absorbing it. So as long as you are not removing forest for your grassland then you are not a net producer from that land. But you would need to manage your grazing properly.
wow, this does sorta explain alot, as humans expanded wild animals went down and so deserts spread. However This appears to be a factor in seasonal grasslands mostly. There are also large areas desertifying that were not grasslands but were instead rain forest or other bushland. Without large amounts of grazers. Would similar treatments work, or can other treatments like increasing wetlands or forest cover aid in removing seasonal dry patches and droughts. Or a combination.
The reasoning does not add-up. This video assumes that the Earth's Human population can continue to expand exponentially. In reality we have already destroyed almost all indigenous wildlife worldwide by deliberately changing natural habitat to support farmed livestock. He should be be offering suggestions to "rewild" desertified areas with species of animals and plants (suitably managed initially) which evolved to exist there - not rearing domesticated species for human consumption - which is by far the biggest waste of the Earth's diminishing natural resources. His admission of error of judgement in recommending the slaughter of tens of thousands of elephants is a warning - he is still getting carried-away with his convictions. If his calculations said 50x10=550, then he would be convinced it was true. Definite thumbs-down.
The class of drugs that Levitra, Viagra, Stendra, and Cialis belong to are called PDE5 inhibitors. They work by relaxing tight blood vessels, allowing more blood to surge into the penis and cause an erection, says Gregory Bales, M.D., an associate professor of urology at the University of Chicago.
The little pills do the trick for more than two-thirds of men with Viagra protects the heart (ED). They also work for guys who simply need them for a short time to get their “confidence back,” says Michael Eisenberg, M.D., director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford University.