Commentary: A critical assessment of the policy endorsement for holistic management Academic Article uri icon


  • This commentary summarizes the evidence supporting holistic management (HM) and intensive rotational grazing (IRG) to demonstrate the extent to which Sherren and coauthors (2012) have overstated their policy endorsement of HM for rangeland application. Five major points are presented - distinction between HM and IRG, insufficient evaluation of the contradictory evidence, limitations of the experimental approach, additional costs associated with IRG, and heterogeneous capabilities and goals of graziers' to manage intensive strategies - to justify why this policy endorsement is ill-advised. The vast majority of experimental evidence does not support claims of enhanced ecological benefits in IRG compared to other grazing strategies, including the capacity to increase storage of soil organic carbon. 2013.

published proceedings


altmetric score

  • 66.366

author list (cited authors)

  • Briske, D. D., Ash, A. J., Derner, J. D., & Huntsinger, L.

citation count

  • 39

complete list of authors

  • Briske, David D||Ash, Andrew J||Derner, Justin D||Huntsinger, Lynn

publication date

  • March 2014